There IS justice in the world

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just poking the bee hive a little. Truthfully it is justice as this is the right answer:

Those twelve citizens heard it all from both sides and then rendered a verdict. Justice was served.

Too often here we jump conclusions about what should have been done and what we would have done different. Here the case has already been settled for us and still there is disagreement about the outcome. I probably would not have done it but that is me. But the case is closed.
 
I would like to hear all the facts for that case.

However, I DO think this guy was VERY LUCKY to have the jury he had and to be found innocent. I don't believe most juries would come to the same conclusions as this one did simply because the person shot was not actually inside the house.
 
A case like that gets "No Billed" (good shoot) by the Grand Jury in Texas.

If you're trying to break in my house I don't intend waiting until you complete the job.
In many cases you are alreay fair game by being on my land.
 
I'm mere Angstrom Units (I know, thats length, not time) from being 50 years old. In the nearly 32 years since reaching the age of majority, I have never been called in to be voir dired for a jury (yes, I vote). I have read in the newspapers and heard on tv hundreds, maybe even thousands of jury decisions... and many with which I've strenuously disagreed. Honestly, the first time I realized that despite various media coverage I wasn't being presented with all the facts, was the O.J. trial. (Please don't get caught up in this, I point to it only as a time reference indicating when I quit shouting at the newspaper or tv)
You've got to know that we, not being jury members or sitting in the courtroom for ALL the proceedings, are not getting ALL of the facts of the case. On top of that, if I were a reporter, even if I sat through every minute of trial, I sincerely doubt that I could divorce myself from my own politics and predjudices, and actually file my reports in a truly unbiased manner. I personally don't think it can be done. So please give the old guy (and his jury) a break here.
 
Just for a moment, let us imagine you are a

Guy who's nearly seventy years old, and somebody is KICKING AND banging on your door.

You fire a shot through the door, since the guy doesn't respond to "STOP THAT" and keeps KICKING and banging on the door.

You are nearly seventy. You have fired a warning shot. The assault on your door continues unabated.

What do you do?

You're nearly SEVENTY years old. Whoever is KICKING on your door is, in all likelihood, quite a bit younger, is evidently angry, and is exhibiting violent KICKING behavior.

Yeah, I'm 70 and I didn't get this old by taking a lot of crap.:D



He comes through that door, you will, in all likelihood, not have a chance

Now I wouldn't say that.;)

Mod10targetclose.gif
 
yea sure you all know the facts of the case.

i do agre shooting through the door sounds not so good,
but here in the prk we have a "slight" problem with meth heads. you can shoot them 10 or 20 times they are dead but the body does not know it.

i was not on the jury in the stated case. but i might have to say go free.

you do not want a meth head and his partner to get past the closed door.
 
I don't claim to have all the facts, but I remember that this story was posted when it happened. They made the shootee out to be a decent guy who happened to be VERY drunk at the time and they said that he wasn't just banging and kicking the door but was trying, very actively and angrily to break it down. I seem to remember that his g/f or ex g/f lived nearby and he could have had the wrong house.

When I titled this thread, I didn't intend it to mean that the shootee got what was coming to him, but that the shooter, who had to shoot someone breaking into his home, didn't get run thru the ringer and end up getting the shaft by our legal system.
 
I can't see how shooting through a door was reasonable but I wasn't there so I don't know. Mabey he saw the guy through a peephole or something but if not, shooting through a door can't be good. And a warning shot? shooting through a door with no intended target on the other side sounds like a great way to shoot some innocent person walking down the sidewalk or eating dinner in their house across the street.
 
This kind of situation is tough. All I'm going on is the short blurb at the top of this thread. But my family had a VERY similar situation:

It was a dark and stormy night (literally). About 8 or 9 years ago (I was 18 at the time) I was visiting friends about 2 hours away from my parent's house. The house sits on 3 acres on a private road in the country, away from any major neighborhoods. They were expecting me home any minute and they were both sleeping on the couch in the front living room. Suddenly, the front door swings open and there is a guy in his early 20's covered in mud standing in the kitchen. Our dog growled menacingly and crept toward the guy and kept between him and my parents. My mom wasn't wearing her glasses and both my parents had just woken up from a dead sleep. She kept saying, "John?.." (thinking this was me standing in the kitchen). He kept saying, "No, it's Shawn." He was absolutely wasted and he was more confused than my parents. When my dad finally realized this was not me, he jumped up and grabbed the guy and threw him out the front door (my dad was about 50 at the time, not very big, but a former Marine). My mom quickly called the police. The guy left temporarily and my parents called the other neighbors on the street to warn them. One neighbor came up to our house to talk to my dad about it and guess who showed up again? Drunken Shawn was now aiming for a fight. This time, my dad and our neighbor tag-teamed the guy and stood over him in the driveway until the Sherriff showed up. Turns out he was looking for a party, was hammered drunk, fell on his face in the mud, showed up at our house thinking the party was there and wouldn't leave. The Sherriff told us this wasn't the first time they'd taken this guy with them. Everything ended up fine, and my dad never even got near his arsenal of weapons.

I guess my point is that in our case, things turned out fine without any serious violence. But if I were the 68-year-old man in the news story, I would have been armed as well. Not sure I would have shot the guy until he actually breached the doorway, but drunkeness is no excuse for trying to break down someone's door. It's hard to judge this case without having been there.
 
I have to disagree with most of you guys - except Arfin Greebly!!

The victim here is 68 years old!! You expect him to wait until the intruder makes entry into the house??? No way would I recommend that for someone his age.

Though the article doesn't say so - I would bet the old guy warned the intruder off and when he didn't comply he got what he had coming to him.

What would you have wanted you 68 year old father / grandfather to do if this happened to him?

Luke
 
Who fires a freaking warning shot through a door?:confused:

There IS justice in the world

Very, very poor choice of words, IMO.

What if the guy had one too many to drink and decided to be a law abiding citizen and walk home from the bar...Two guys try to rob him and he runs to the first house he sees.

What a way to die, very justified.

Obivously this is all speculation, but who knows, HE'S DEAD NOW.
 
Age realated break?

I suspect if Rodger were 28 or 38 instead of 68 this might have gone very differently for him. I don't see how anyone can get away with shooting through a closed door to the outside. But he may have caught a break because of his age.
 
I have the benefit of youth in this case, and would have acted accordingly. As stated, the arguments applied to the logic of the situation would differ greatly depending upon the circumstances. Had said actions occurred in apartment complex, rather than hypothetically in the middle of a rural area, the outcome of this trial might have been quite different. I would be willing to wager in this case, that the elderly gentleman's domicile lay somewhere in between urban and rural. Assuming voir dire was conducted in a reasonable manner, we can conclude that the jury made their determination in accordance with judges instructions based on the evidence presented. Why second-guess (judge?) them?

In the glorious state of California, where I happen to reside, it would be prudent for those presented with similar circumstance to wait until the door in question had been breached and entry made before prescribing to cure the offending individual obvious lead-deficiency.
 
I don't like shooting through doors, but I can't find any reason to argue against the guy. If I was in my house and someone was trying to break my door down I might think about slowing him down before he gets in.

Also, there is about 12 feet between my front door and my bedroom door. Not a lot of time to make a decision once he gets through the door. Sure hope that first shot slows him down.


I really, really seriously cannot believe that anyone could confuse a loud knock by a postman/UPS guy in the middle of the day with a drunk trying to beat down the door in the middle of the night. Please, please try to keep some of these arguments out of the silly realm.

And needing a phone to dial 911 is NOT an excuse to break down someone's door. Yelling through the door requesting that the owners call 911 is a much, much better plan.
 
The drunk guy does not get a pass because he's drunk. You are responsible for your actions even when drunk. The drunk would have been prosecuted if he'd gotten in a car and driven off and killed someone.

If you're responsible for your actions if you kill someone, why not be held accountable if your actions get you killed?

Edit to Add: The shooter went through the legal system, justice often has nothing to do with it.
 
Bad shoot. Totally irresponsible shoot. Not an example to follow or condone.

In order to be in the Legal "right" when using Lethal Force, your aggressor must have the means, opportunity and clear intent to do you harm. The shots fired were done before there was any opportunity to do harm, because the door was still up and was impeding Kirkpatrick from making physical contact with Lore. The homeowner had no idea who was behind the door, his intent or means and yet he fired. It was a bad shoot. What was Kirkpatrick's intent anyway? How can Lore prove that he had reason to fear for his life when he had absolutely no idea what was behind the door. I'm sure that we can just brush it all under the rug and just assume the drunk was a serial rapist because he had traces of marijuana in his system :rolleyes:

If you find yourself in such a situation, wait till the door opens and you make visual contact OR if that is too dicey for you, run to a saferoom, lock the door, and then train your gun on that interior door. I don't think even the Castle Doctrine should cover you when you start putting multiple rounds through exterior doors.

Oh, and lesson for all: it's a very bad idea to go banging on doors in the middle of the night. High risk/suicidal activity there.
 
If you're responsible for your actions if you kill someone, why not be held accountable if your actions get you killed?

At night in Houston some years back a drunken foreigner beat on a family's front door then went around back and beat on the back door. He ignored warnings and the homeowner fearing a home invasion shot and killed him through the door.

Ruled a "good shooting".

If you want to get high or drunk and act like a criminal, then it's your own fault if you are treated as a criminal.
 
Justus is as justus does. Is their enough info. too determine if this was a justified shooting or not, no their isn't enough not from the reports posted here.I would say that jury heard all the evidence and made an informed opine.They found the man not guilty and they are the only people who mattered, so yes justice was served. Maybe the situation could have been handled better as to not having to resort to deadly force.But let me respectfully submit this, what if you were the old man and were TRULY AFRAID for your life, what would have done?
 
Bad shoot. Totally irresponsible shoot. Not an example to follow or condone.

In order to be in the Legal "right" when using Lethal Force, your aggressor must have the means, opportunity and clear intent to do you harm. The shots fired were done before there was any opportunity to do harm, because the door was still up and was impeding Kirkpatrick from making physical contact with Lore. The homeowner had no idea who was behind the door, his intent or means and yet he fired. It was a bad shoot. What was Kirkpatrick's intent anyway? How can Lore prove that he had reason to fear for his life when he had absolutely no idea what was behind the door. I'm sure that we can just brush it all under the rug and just assume the drunk was a serial rapist because he had traces of marijuana in his system

If you find yourself in such a situation, wait till the door opens and you make visual contact OR if that is too dicey for you, run to a saferoom, lock the door, and then train your gun on that interior door. I don't think even the Castle Doctrine should cover you when you start putting multiple rounds through exterior doors.

Oh, and lesson for all: it's a very bad idea to go banging on doors in the middle of the night. High risk/suicidal activity there.

I personally, completely disagree! 2 inches of pressed wood and aluminum is NOT much of a barrier to protect an old man from agressor. When you have a scum bag trying to break in on you then giving the warning and him firing the warning shot gives pretty much anyone with a brain a big hint to GET AWAY NOW! If you don't want to be shot then go! The "intent" was pretty obvious at the point where he did not go!

Now I am NOT 68 but I don't intend on becoming a victim either, my plan involves them going away and not hurting me or my family, whatever needs to happen to ensure that is fine by me.
 
I would have slipped the lock and stood back. If the fool enters my home I would ask him to leave. His failure to obey my request would be the last foolish decision he would ever make.

NO I would not shoot a warning shot. They seldom warn.

NO I would not shoot a target I could not identify.

YES IF he was foolish enough to risk his life, I would take it. It is all about accountability. He chose to imbibe in substances that rendered him incapable of making good decisions. Unfortunatley I am not a social worker here to solve his issues. I am a mechanic here to resolve the threat to my familys safety using the tools I have at hand. That those tools render him incabable of making further bad decisions is a benefit to society in general.
 
Here's a little more info on this shoot for those who may be interested. from thederrick.com

He thought it was a bear.

But as Trooper Paul Richey neared the "growling" noise coming from the side porch of the Pittsburgh Road home, he realized it was a man struggling to stay alive.

With blood pooling on the porch beneath him, David Scott Kirkpatrick still had a slight pulse and was producing a guttural noise when Ritchey and Trooper Robert Finch arrived at 1436 Pittsburgh Road, Sandycreek Township at 3:39 a.m. Saturday, Sept. 23, 2006.

That was the morning Kirkpatrick left a local bar, arrived at the home of a couple he did not know and was shot dead by the home's owner.

Kirkpatrick died a short time after police arrived on scene.

The shooter, Rodger G. Lore, is charged with involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter in Kirkpatrick's death. His trial began Friday in Venango County Court.

Police say Lore, 68, a retired biology teacher with the Franklin Area School District fired two shots from a .22 caliber revolver through a closed and locked door, striking Kirkpatrick in the head and shoulder area, killing him.

There is no question that Lore shot Kirkpatrick. The issue at hand, according assistant district attorney William Martin, is whether the shooting was justified.

"The critical issue, I think, is going to be the use of deadly force," Martin said during his opening statement. "The use of deadly force in this case is not justified."

Kirkpatrick did not have any weapons and at no time breached any doors or windows at the Lore residence, according to police. Also, there is no evidence Kirkpatrick was trying to burglarize the Lores' home that night, Martin said.

"You don't get to deadly force until you're at the end of your rope ... Mr. Lore was not out of options. He was not at the end for his rope when he made the decision to pull the trigger and fire two shots," Martin said.

But Lore's attorney disagreed, saying his client shot Kirkpatrick in self defense.

"We all cherish the sanctity of our homes ... Our home is our last sanctuary of safety and peace," attorney Robert Varsek said. "What is more violent than someone trying to force their way into your house, your sanctuary?"

Witnesses recall events of evening

It is not known why Kirkpatrick went to the Lores' home that morning. However, witnesses were able to recount the events of Kirkpatrick's evening leading up to the shooting.

John Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick's father, testified Friday that he took his son to the Airways Lounge, which is located along Pittsburgh Road, a short distance from the Lore home, the evening of Friday, Sept. 22, 2006. John Kirkpatrick said he was supposed to pick up his son at the Airways Lounge at 1:30 a.m., but when he arrived at the bar, he could not find him and left.

Another person testified that Kirkpatrick had asked her for a ride from the bar that night.

Kelly Hesson said she, Kirkpatrick and some other people had planned to go to a friend's house after they left the bar, and Kirkpatrick had asked her for a ride there. When it came time to leave, she couldn't locate Kirkpatrick and left without him.

"I was getting ready to leave and used the restroom facilities. When I came out he was nowhere in sight," Hesson said.

Hesson said she waited in her car for a few minutes, but Kirkpatrick never turned up, and she left.

Several people testified that they saw Kirkpatrick at the bar that night, shooting pool, dancing and drinking beer. No one who testified, however, could account for the time between when Kirkpatrick was last seen in the bar and when he arrived at the Lores' house.

Police were dispatched at 3:36 a.m. Sept. 23, 2006 to 1436 Pittsburgh Road, the home of Rodger and Peggy Lore, for a report of an unwanted actor. They arrived at the house at 3:39 a.m.

In the three minutes between the time the first call was made to 911 and the time police arrived at the residence, Lore had retrieved a handgun from his bedroom and fired two shots through the home's side door, striking Kirkpatrick twice.

The Lores did not turn on any lights and did not warn Kirkpatrick that they had called authorities, according to police.

Bleeding "fairly profusely," Kirkpatrick was discovered lying facedown against the screen door on the Lores' side porch, Finch testified.

Finch and Richey rolled Kirkpatrick and tried to administer CPR.

"I was getting some breaths in, but every time Trooper Finch would apply chest compressions, you could hear the slushing of blood coming from the torso," Richey said. "Shortly after we started (CPR), he basically bled out."

Troopers canvassed the house and found no signs that windows or doors had been breached. There was no noticeable damage to any of the doors, except for the two bullet holes in the side door, according to police.

Lore's trial resumes at 9 a.m. Monday before President Judge Oliver J. Lobaugh. It is expected to last two more days.
 
And the follow up, also from thederrick.com

Lore jury delivers not guilty verdict
By ERIN SCHATTAUER



While the defendant and his family feel relief, the slain man's relatives are outraged.


A Venango County jury deliberated just over an hour Wednesday afternoon before delivering a not guilty verdict in the case of a Sandycreek Township resident accused of shooting a man he said was trying to break into his home on a September morning in 2006.

"Thank God!" Rodger Lore exclaimed after the verdict was read.

His wife, Peggy, wept.

On the other side of a crowded courtroom, David Scott Kirkpatrick's mother, Debbie, doubled over in her seat, sobbing loudly, then rushed through the room's back door.

The verdict came as a surprise to Kirkpatrick's family and friends who had gathered, some with tissues in hand, to hear the trial's outcome.

"What kind of justice is this?" demanded Juanita Kuhns, Kirkpatrick's grandmother. "This boy's life was taken."

"Our hearts are broke. My daughter has lost her only son," she said.

But for the other family affected by the case, the jury's verdict was a relief.

Fellow teachers, church goers, friends, the Lores' children and other family members cried tears of joy and embraced one another after the verdict was read.

Lore, a 68-year-old retired biology teacher, was on trial for involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of Kirkpatrick, a Polk Cutoff Road resident.

There was no doubt Lore shot Kirkpatrick. Jurors, though, had to decide if the shooting was justified.

Taking the stand in his own defense Tuesday, Lore admitted he loaded five bullets into a .22 caliber revolver in the early morning hours of Sept. 23, 2006, and fired two of them through a closed and locked door at the man standing on his back porch.

Lore and his wife were awakened around 3:30 a.m. that day to find someone "pounding and kicking" at their door, Lore testified. Fearing the person was armed, Lore retrieved the revolver from his bedroom dresser drawer and fired a "warning" shot at the man. When the man still didn't stop pounding on the door, he fired a second shot.

The first shot grazed Kirkpatrick's scalp. The second shot, which Lore said was meant to hit the man in the shoulder, entered Kirkpatrick's neck, traveled through his body and entered his right lung, fatally wounding him.

Kirkpatrick died as state police troopers, who arrived almost immediately after the shooting, tried to administer CPR.

No one may ever know what Kirkpatrick was doing at the Pittsburgh Road residence that morning. He had missed two rides from the Airways Lounge, which is located a short distance from the Lores' home.

One of those rides was from his father who testified Friday. John Kirkpatrick said he went to the Airways Lounge at 1:30 a.m. that day to retrieve his son, but could not find him and left. After leaving, he parked his tractor trailer at a nearby fruit stand where he often parked overnight while in Franklin. The stand is located across the street from the Lores' home.

Whatever 28-year-old Kirkpatrick was doing at 1436 Pittsburgh Road that morning, Lore remains confident that the man was trying to get into his house.

In his closing remarks, Lore's attorney, Robert Varsek, said his client never meant to kill the potential intruder.

"If he wanted to kill him he would have done it with the first shot," Varsek said.

Lore acted in self defense and was justified in his actions, according to Varsek.

"The adage your home is your castle, it means something here in Venango County and everywhere else," Varsek said.

"Don't think for one minute that he had to run away and hide in his own house," Varsek said. "You shouldn't have to languish with criminal punishment for defending your house and defending your family."

Although he agreed a person does not have to retreat when he is in his home, assistant district attorney William Martin argued that Lore's decision to use deadly force in this situation was not reasonable.

"You have to look at whether he or Mrs. Lore was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury," Martin told jurors in his closing remarks.

Martin said that at no time did Lore make his presence known to Kirkpatrick. He never told him he had a gun. He never told him the police had been called. He never turned on any lights.

"The bottom line is Mr. Kirkpatrick never gained entry to that home. He's outside the entire time," Martin said.

Kirkpatrick never verbally threatened the Lores, Martin added. Also, if Kirkpatrick had wanted to gain entry to the home, he could have done it secretively without drawing the Lores' attention or by breaking a window, but he didn't, Martin pointed out.

Lore was the initial aggressor in the situation, not Kirkpatrick, Martin said.

"Mr. Lore picked up the gun and introduced deadly force into this situation," Martin said.

In the end, it was the jury's job to decide if the shooting was justified.

With three days of testimony and evidence to consider, jurors began deliberating at about 1:30 p.m. Wednesday. A little over an hour later they returned to announce the verdict before President Judge Oliver J. Lobaugh.

About 70 people, including family and friends, attorneys and court personnel, filled courtroom benches and chairs to hear Wednesday's verdict.

Her voice hurried, the jury foreman read the verdict.

After the second "not guilty" was announced, the courtroom erupted.

"I can't believe this!" cried one of Kirkpatrick's supporters.

"You've got to be kidding," said another.

On the other side of the room, supporters of the Lore family embraced.

Although he was acquitted, the morning of Sept. 23, 2006, will forever haunt him, according to Lore.

"I think about it every day," he said. "It shouldn't have happened."

The Lores have lived at 1436 Pittsburgh Road, Sandycreek Township for 10 years, Lore said. He has no intention of moving, but his wife still won't stay in the house alone, he said.

Lore expressed his sorrow Wednesday for the Kirkpatrick family.

"I have great remorse for the Kirkpatricks, but if their son hadn't been breaking into my house, he wouldn't be dead."
 
Although he agreed a person does not have to retreat when he is in his home, assistant district attorney William Martin argued that Lore's decision to use deadly force in this situation was not reasonable.

"You have to look at whether he or Mrs. Lore was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury," Martin told jurors in his closing remarks.

That might be one of the more stupid comments I have read in awhile. I understand what a lot of posters are saying on this regarding waiting for the door to actually be bashed in so you can then face your attacker head on and deal with it then. But seriously guys, you have no idea what is coming in from the other side of the door. (I know that will be your argument as to why you shouldn't shoot)

I give the nod to Arfin on this one. It is all about what is reasonable, what some of you may find reprehensible, a jury of his peers found him to justified and reasonable in his actions.

I usually throw this back to the people that have a problem with it and say if you want to wait for someone to kick in your door at 3:30 am, after they have been verbally warned, warned again with a shot fired through the door, and they keep trying to kick in your door, then by all means wait for them to get inside and then do what you are going to do. However, anybody with 1/2a brain at that time in the night is going to assume that the person is up to no good. Waiting for them to actually bust in your door so that they have a clear shot at you, can blind you with a light, hit you with something, or do whatever, doesn't sound like the best advice. Really you are rolling the dice on that one, at least you have the door to protect you at that point. Bringing in a historical reference since we are talking about a man's "castle" here, you didn't see the defenders in olden times waiting for the castle gates to be bashed in before they unleased hell on the agressors, did you? I think there was a pretty good reason for that, and while these are obviously different situations, I think you get the point. It is your castle and the prudent thing after that many warnings is to defend yourself and your home in the most efficient manner you can. JMHO.

I commend those that are not willing to let this drunk idiot off the hook for his actions. Should he have paid for his actions with his life? That was for the jury to decide, unfortunately this was the outcome and he did pay for his stupidity with his life. Would you rather that his stupidity had killed someone either with a weapon or a car that he was driving? Let's saddle up and take some personal responsibility here, shall we?

This same thing happened a couple of times last fall, one in Texas with the musician shot dead through a door and another one a week later in Washington State. Does anybody know what came of those incidents?
 
2 inches of pressed wood and aluminum is NOT much of a barrier to protect an old man from agressor. When you have a scum bag trying to break in on you then giving the warning and him firing the warning shot gives pretty much anyone with a brain a big hint to GET AWAY NOW If you don't want to be shot then go! The "intent" was pretty obvious at the point where he did not go! !

Now I am NOT 68 but I don't intend on becoming a victim either, my plan involves them going away and not hurting me or my family, whatever needs to happen to ensure that is fine by me.


if you want to wait for someone to kick in your door at 3:30 am, after they have been verbally warned, warned again with a shot fired through the door, and they keep trying to kick in your door, then by all means wait for them to get inside and then do what you are going to do. However, anybody with 1/2a brain at that time in the night is going to assume that the person is up to no good. Waiting for them to actually bust in your door so that they have a clear shot at you, can blind you with a light, hit you with something, or do whatever, doesn't sound like the best advice. Really you are rolling the dice on that one, at least you have the door to protect you at that point.

Great minds think alike!
 
IMHO, if someone gets through the steel door on the front of my house, they're a problem. If they don't, well, that's what 911 is for.

That, and a 12 gauge aimed at the door.

Guys, before you start salivating over the opportunity to actually use one of those all-purpose-tools that some of us call boomsticks, think of this: That "righteous" shoot took someone's life. And likely also cost the shooter well over $10,000. Now, I'll sit and wait for someone to crowbar the door, or whatever, to save that $10,000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top