How Many Mistakes Did This Homeowner Make?

[Kleanbore]

Two high school students rang a doorbell and told the responding resident that they had parked their car on the public street in front of the house an hour or so before, and that it was now gone.

The resident stood in the doorway told the visitors to stay put.

He stepped back, opened a drawer a few feet from the door, and obtained a Parkerized Model 1911 pistol.

He opened the screen door, cocked the hammer while holding the gun in both hands, pointed the gun at his visitors, and told them to not leave.

He stepped back inside and retrieved a telephone.

He returned with the telephone, and while holding the screen door open and standing within arms reach of his visitors, he took his eyes off his visitors while he dialed the phone to call the police.

He put the phone down and spent the time waiting for the police to arrive pointing the gun at one visitor and then the other, holding it well within their reach.

He had previously called the police, thinking the car to have been stolen because it had out of state plates, and the police had taken the car.

 

[Danoobie]

Seven?

 

[Hanzo581]

All of them?

 

[Rexster]

At least thirteen or fourteen mistakes, by my count, on the first reading; legal, tactical, and/or reasonableness/common-sense. Further review might reveal more, or that I counted too high. This homeowner would not do very well, legally, if I were the responding officer. (I find it difficult, however, to understand why the police had "taken" a car for merely having out-of-state plates. I would need more justification, than that, to seize a car.)

 

[Jeff White]

He had previously called the police, thinking the car to have been stolen because it had out of state plates, and the police had taken the car.

We have to be missing some information. The homeowner called the police and reported a suspicious vehicle and the police came and impounded it? Was it parked illegally and towed? Did the responding officer run the plate and discover the car was in fact stolen and tell the homeowner that his suspicion was correct and the car was stolen?

Even if the homeowner was correct and the car was stolen, all he should have done was call the police and tell them that the people associated with the vehicle that was impounded were in the neighborhood on foot and give a good description of them. There was no reason for any more interaction then that.

 

[MedWheeler]

Sounds like quite a few, but I have neither the full story, nor its source. There may be even yet more. I also don't know what was in the resident's mind, or why he may have felt the way he did. Perhaps he'd been burglarized earlier that day, or the day prior, and was "on the lookout." Perhaps, if he had been victimized, the car had been suspected of involvement. Maybe the demeanor of the "two utes" when they first made contact with him, before he got the gun out, stood hairs up.

Still, just from the rather vague presentation here, it doesn't sound like it bodes well for the homeowner, and could have been even worse in a different way had the visitors indeed intended harm. Or, it may not have...

(Oh, is it relevant that the gun was "Parkerized"?)

 

[Kleanbore]

This homeowner would not do very well, legally, if I were the responding officer(I find it difficult, however, to understand why the police had "taken" a car for merely having out-of-state plates. I would need more justification, than that, to seize a car.).

Good.

QUOTE="Jeff White, post: 10584254, member: 112"]The homeowner called the police and reported a suspicious vehicle and the police came and impounded it?[/QUOTE]Yes.

Was it parked illegally and towed?

Yes.

Did the responding officer run the plate and discover the car was in fact stolen and tell the homeowner that his suspicion was correct and the car was stolen?

No.

Even if the homeowner was correct and the car was stolen, all he should have done was call the police and tell them that the people associated with the vehicle that was impounded were in the neighborhood on foot and give a good description of them. There was no reason for any more interaction then that.

Right!

Sounds like quite a few, but I have neither the full story, nor its source.

The source is I. Happened in 1961. The rest of the story follows.

Maybe the demeanor of the "two utes" when they first made contact with him, before he got the gun out, stood hairs up.

Shouldn't have.

Still, just from the rather vague presentation here, it doesn't sound like it bodes well for the homeowner, and could have been even worse in a different way had the visitors indeed intended harm.

Right.

The homeowner did not get into trouble. The police were too involved with trying to defuse the situation and avoid the consequences of having taken the car without reason and of having taken the driver and his passengers into custody and putting them in jail.

And trying to get the stains of the dusting powder out of the fresh Simonize on the light yellow car.

Oh, is it relevant that the gun was "Parkerized"?)

No.

My assessment of the homeowner's mistakes?

1. Detaining persons without cause.
2. Keeping a handgun in an unlocked drawer in close proximity to an unlocked front door.
3. Pointing a gun at persons without justification.
4. Holding his gun within arms reach of the persons at which he was pointing it.
5. Diverting his attention from the persons while using the telephone.

One should probably add these:

1. Having the door unlocked in the first place (but people didn't worry about those things then--the sun had not set, and this happened in a "good neighborhood").
2. Answering the door and opening it, if he really believed that those who had knocked might be criminals.
3. Keeping the gun in Condition 2, or with an empty chamber, if the latter had really been the case.

The police made several mistakes.

Which of the home-owner;s mistakes have I missed?

 

[Jeff White]

The police made several mistakes.

Yes, I can see that happening in 1961. These days I can see a nice settlement from the City's insurer for conduct like that.

My assessment of the homeowner's mistakes?

1. Detaining persons without cause.
2. Keeping a handgun in an unlocked drawer in close proximity to an unlocked front door.
3. Pointing a gun at persons without justification.
4. Holding his gun within arms reach of the persons at which he was pointing it.
5. Diverting his attention from the persons while using the telephone.

One should probably add these:

1. Having the door unlocked in the first place (but people didn't worry about those things then--the sun had not set, and this happened in a "good neighborhood").
2. Answering the door and opening it, if he really believed that those who had knocked might be criminals.
3. Keeping the gun in Condition 2, or with an empty chamber, if the latter had really been the case.

There could have easily been criminal (although most prosecutors I've known are pretty lenient about what someone does at their front door) but definitely civil repercussions. The proper response from the homeowner should have been to say through the door, "the police towed your car, I'll be happy to call them for you" No need to open the door at all.

 

[fallout mike]

Just curious, how do we know he took his eyes off the guys to call police. I can dial numbers on my phone without looking really easy. And it's even easier to just dial 911, if it was even around in 61. Regardless though, pretty easy.

 

[hdwhit]

Kleanbore wrote:
The police made several mistakes.

Given what was said about the police actions in post #1, I would be interested in an itemized list of their mistakes as you gave with respect to the homeowner in post #7

 

[Kleanbore]

Just curious, how do we know he took his eyes off the guys to call police. I can dial numbers on my phone without looking really easy.

Eyewitness observation.

Ever dial a seven digit number on a rotary-dial phone while holding it in both hands while holding a firearm?

And it's even easier to just dial 911, if it was even around in 61.

It wasn't.

 

[hdwhit]

Kleanbore: wrote:
And trying to get the stains of the dusting powder out of the fresh Simonize on the light yellow car.

Yikes!

For those reading this younger than about 60, Simoniz (without the "e") was/is a brand of car wax based on natural carnuba wax. When applied - a process generally referred to as Simonize (with the "e") - the wax had to have time for the carrier to evaporate and the wax to harden. Once the wax hardened, the shine was very lustrous and durable.

If dust, sand, grit, fingerprint powder, etc. that got into the wax before it finished hardening, it became part of the wax layer and was very difficult to remove because it meant polishing off all the wax.

 

[Kleanbore]

Right, no "e".

The wax had been applied only a few hours before the incident.

Several of us could not remove the prints, and about a half dozen very embarrassed police officers did it while we watched.

 

[ilbob]

maybe none. it was 1961 and that kind of thing probably would have been tolerated better back then.

 

[Kleanbore]

maybe none. it was 1961 and that kind of thing probably would have been tolerated better back then.

"Tolerated"? Would he have been at less risk of being killed or seriously injured in 1961? Would his risk of an unintentional discharge have been lower?

 

[fallout mike]

I don't recall ever using a rotary phone. Lol

 

[Deaf Smith]

Question is simple... did the cops arrest the home owner or not? If they didn't, and told him 'well done', then no mistakes.

So, even if in 1961... what did the cops say?

Oh, and as for TODAY, depends on what state. See if the car was KNOWN by the cops to be stolen, and KNOWN by the homeowner to be stolen, and the kids basically admitted it was theirs, well they are felons who just came back to the scene of the crime. But in what state it happened will determine a lot.

Deaf

 

[RPZ]

I count seven.

Did not have the pistol to hand when he answered the door, stepped away to get it.

Opened the screen door removing a barrier for any sudden hostile bodily force, which he could see through and what was going on, identify any threat, and if needed could shoot through.

Pointed the gun at them.

Told them not to leave. This could be construed as an arrest, as at this point the two could definitely have believed they were not free to go.

Stepped away to get phone which he could have had with him, or closed and locked the door to get it and make the call.

Called with screen door open removing barrier again, and probably had phone in one hand gun in the other. Not a good position to be in arms reach to two possible hostiles.

Pointed gun at them again. They would again definitely believe they were not free to leave.

 

[Kleanbore]

Question is simple... did the cops arrest the home owner or not?

No. They were far too concerned about their own embarrassment and potential liability.

If they didn't, and told him 'well done', then no mistakes.

I don't know now anyone could conclude that. The fact that he was not disarmed and killed was not the result of his having made no mistakes. It was the result of his visitors not being violent criminal actors--something that he had no way of knowing.

Oh, and as for TODAY, depends on what state.

Maybe. But he could have been overpowered and killed in New Hampshire as easily as in Oregon.

See if the car was KNOWN by the cops to be stolen, and KNOWN by the homeowner to be stolen, and the kids basically admitted it was theirs, well they are felons who just came back to the scene of the crime.

Not part of the account here.

 

[hdwhit]

Kleanbore wrote:
The wax had been applied only a few hours before the incident.

Ooops.

I didn't mean to steal your thunder on this, but it occurred to me that many of the people on this site might be too young to remember the joys and frustrations of Simoniz.

Also, I seriously would like to hear your take on what the police did wrong. I'm not looking to start a fight over it, I just want the contemporary perspective.

Thanks.

 

[hdwhit]

fallout mike wrote:
I don't recall ever using a rotary phone. Lol

Visit a museum with hands-on exhibits..

Seriously, you really should get a feel for how the world worked when everything "electronic" was done on an analog basis with discrete components. It is amazing how much of what we today know and accept as 20th-Century life is based on that technology.

 

[Kleanbore]

I didn't mean to steal your thunder on this, but it occurred to me that many of the people on this site might be too young to remember the joys and frustrations of Simoniz.

I'm glad that you appreciate our frustrations.

Also, I seriously would like to hear your take on what the police did wrong. I'm not looking to start a fight over it, I just want the contemporary perspective.

Well, they towed a legally parked car and dusted it.

They told us that they had contacted every state patrol from Virginia to Missouri to find out if the car had been stolen and had learned nothing.

They took two people into custody without explaining why.

That's enough for me.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The fact that he was not disarmed and killed was not the result of his having made no mistakes. It was the result of his visitors not being violent criminal actors--something that he had no way of knowing.

Oh, so people who hold suspects at gunpoint are all gonna be disarmed by the bad guy? That sounds like something anti-gunners would say.

Do you feel you would be disarmed if you pointed a gun at suspects at the door?

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

Oh, so people who hold suspects at gunpoint are all gonna be disarmed by the bad guy?

Not all of them, but if the gun is within arm's reach of two people, there is a very significant risk of that happening--if they are "bad guys". Why would you think otherwise?

So you feel you would be disarmed if you pointed a gun at suspects at the door?

"Would be"? Dunno. But I do know that that serious risk is why people are trained to keep their firearms out of grasping reach of potential attackers.

 

[Stope Rat]

Am I missing the point (if any) of this story? It happened over 50 years ago and I'm not seeing a tremendous amount of relevance to today. Although the discussion of car wax was interesting.