Ohio Shooting Incident

[Kleanbore]

An Ohio man recently shot and killed a person identified as his daughter's ex-boyfriend as the man attempted to break into the house in broad daylight. The incident was caught on a Ring Doorbell.

The shooter reportedly will not be charged. One obviously questionable aspect of the shooing lies in the fact that the third and fatal shot was fired after the man had turned and fled almost all the way to the driveway. Whether the shooter was able to know that is not clear. It could have had serious consequences.

The shooter unwisely agreed a police interview without counsel. The recorded interview was shown on one of Andrew Branca's LoSD blog posts, along with a discussion by an experienced police interrogator.

The laid back middle aged suspect, dressed casually, was interviewed by a similarly dressed middle aged officer, who appeared relaxed, friendly, and possibly sympathetic. The man asked questions to which the answers were already well known. He asked questions that appeared unrelated to the incident.

Andrew's guest explained the why and wherefore of each question and gesture of the trained interrogator. The timing of that third shot was but not mentioned--he was pulling on other threads, looking for motive. It was extremely enlightening.

https://www.kxan.com/news/national-...shoot-daughters-ex-boyfriend-during-break-in/

 

[luzyfuerza]

For those who aren't LoSD members and who want to see the ring footage:



Dad's police interview:



And daughter's police interview:



These videos might be useful for those who have never had to make immediate life-or-death decisions, or to deal with a police interrogation, depositions, or being a witness under oath in court.

Put yourself in this family's shoes as you watch.

It is not wise to submit to interrogation without counsel present, nor to be interrogated less than 48 hours after an incident.

Put more bluntly, there is never any advantage to a defender to submit to interrogation by the police without counsel present, nor to be interviewed immediately after such a traumatic event. There is only downside for the defender. You just say: "Officer, I'm sure that you can understand that this was a traumatic event for me. You'll have my full cooperation after I've had a chance to talk with counsel." And then shut up.

This is true even after an event like this one that is captured on clear video, where physical evidence is intact, and witnesses are cooperative and have no motive to lie or forget.

 

[lemaymiami]

Very well said, Luzy... In fact at my department we wrote into our internal affairs standards that any officer involved in a shooting would be given a 24 hour period of time before being interviewed or required to make any statements at all. My one and only shooting incident - more than 40 years ago now... Had me required to write a report of the incident a few hours later - and I was actually required to do a walk-through re-enactment on video at the shooting scene less than two hours after it occurred... Fortunately for me, the incident was ruled justified. Years later, as a mid-level manager you can bet that I participated in writing the regs for those kinds of situations... In the few situations where someone that worked for me was involved in a shooting incident I also made a point of assigning an assistance officer to the individual involved from the first moment we were on scene until we cleared it. That officer was told not to ask any questions of the officer - and make sure that no one else did either (all while making certain the shooting officer could make contact with his or her family, etc. and take care of any personal needs).

An armed citizen should co-operate in any investigation of a shooting he or she is involved in if at all possible- but keep any statements to the absolute minimum until you've been allowed to speak with your attorney. I'd suggest that your statements be confined to identifying yourself, providing a brief account of what occurred ("there were three of them - I thought I was done" One of them is there - the other two got away)...and assuring the investigators that you'll be glad to give a full statement as soon as you're able.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

For those who aren't LoSD members and who want to see the ring footage:



Dad's police interview:



And daughter's police interview:



These videos might be useful for those who have never had to make immediate life-or-death decisions, or to deal with a police interrogation, depositions, or being a witness under oath in court.

Put yourself in this family's shoes as you watch.

It is not wise to submit to interrogation without counsel present, nor to be interrogated less than 48 hours after an incident.

Put more bluntly, there is never any advantage to a defender to submit to interrogation by the police without counsel present, nor to be interviewed immediately after such a traumatic event. There is only downside for the defender. You just say: "Officer, I'm sure that you can understand that this was a traumatic event for me. You'll have my full cooperation after I've had a chance to talk with counsel." And then shut up.

This is true even after an event like this one that is captured on clear video, where physical evidence is intact, and witnesses are cooperative and have no motive to lie or forget.

These videos are useful if they teach you to NEVER MAKE STATEMENTS WITHOUT YOUR LAWYER BEING PRESENT.

 

[scaatylobo]

Very well said, Luzy... In fact at my department we wrote into our internal affairs standards that any officer involved in a shooting would be given a 24 hour period of time before being interviewed or required to make any statements at all. My one and only shooting incident - more than 40 years ago now... Had me required to write a report of the incident a few hours later - and I was actually required to do a walk-through re-enactment on video at the shooting scene less than two hours after it occurred... Fortunately for me, the incident was ruled justified. Years later, as a mid-level manager you can bet that I participated in writing the regs for those kinds of situations... In the few situations where someone that worked for me was involved in a shooting incident I also made a point of assigning an assistance officer to the individual involved from the first moment we were on scene until we cleared it. That officer was told not to ask any questions of the officer - and make sure that no one else did either (all while making certain the shooting officer could make contact with his or her family, etc. and take care of any personal needs).

An armed citizen should co-operate in any investigation of a shooting he or she is involved in if at all possible- but keep any statements to the absolute minimum until you've been allowed to speak with your attorney. I'd suggest that your statements be confined to identifying yourself, providing a brief account of what occurred ("there were three of them - I thought I was done" One of them is there - the other two got away)...and assuring the investigators that you'll be glad to give a full statement as soon as you're able.

I can only hope & pray that all who read the responses here.

Add the real weight to the LEO's and retired LEO's here [ yes even me ].

We have heard and seen much that most only glean from the TV and movies.

The real world and the real courtroom is a HUGE difference from the make believe world of TV & movies.

 

[jmorris]

The ring video is amazingly bad, 3 min isn’t a bad response time by the Officers.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Me being I have to chime in that the front door did a credible job. It's unlikely that you'll ever find a door in a residential structure that can't be battered down but it held up long enough for the homeowner to retrieve a weapon and prepare himself. Provided the Ring camera was being accessed in real time that's a pretty good amount of time to get ready.