Pa. cops fatally shoot homeowner who had pulled gun on intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think the alarm company told the cops someone had a gun. I'm guessing they were tipped off by the fact that they heard gunshots. If you hear gunshots when you respond to a break-in alarm, somebody's probably got a gun.

This is unclear. You mean to say that when the cops know there's a gun present (whos gun? How do they know?) they're MORE likely to shoot a homeowner than an intruder? If so, based on what? What study has ever shown that responding police officers shoot homeowners more than criminals?

Most cops would assume there's (probably) a gun present anytime they are called to home because, there probably is! After all, somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of US homes have guns, plus you're talking about a break-in in this case, and there's a pretty good chance the bad guy has a gun which raises those odds more yet. So it would be incredibly foolish for any officer to go to an emergency call thinking there are no guns involved.

Or are you saying that if a homeowner TELLS the cops they have a gun, the cops will go and shoot them? I certainly doubt that's what you meant because that's just absurd, but none of these things would be relevant to this case as the couple DIDN'T call the cops.

Where are you getting your data from?
when cops are informed there is a guy with a gun they will shoot a guy with a gun no matter who he is. have seen it many times on u tube I don't think you read my post above cause I added to it.
 
when cops are informed there is a guy with a gun they will shoot a guy with a gun no matter who he is.
That's pretty damning of cops, who generally have a pretty good record of not shooting people, even armed bad guys, unless they are convinced in the moment they absolutely have to.

There are better and worse ways to go about communicating and interacting with the police in a home invasion situation. And sometimes things go badly wrong, like it appears here.

But I don't agree that you should deal with a potentially violent situation yourself and try to get it "handled" before you contact the police, if you have a choice. If nothing else, I wouldn't want to have to answer why I DIDN'T feel concerned enough for my life and family to call the police, but did decide to go hunt down and kill a thief, vandal, burglar, etc.

Planning a sound defensive strategy for your home should help you avoid ever having this kind of an unfortunate end. Deciding ahead of time what to say to the dispatcher, where to be when the police arrive, and what you should be doing and not doing when they get there will go a long way. Saying if the police know someone's in the house with a gun then they're going to shoot someone who has a gun, period, seems highly irresponsible, and doesn't reflect the attitudes or procedures of any of the officers I've known.

have seen it many times on u tube
Grin. Quote of the day.
 
That's pretty damning of cops, who generally have a pretty good record of not shooting people, even armed bad guys, unless they are convinced in the moment they absolutely have to.

There are better and worse ways to go about communicating and interacting with the police in a home invasion situation. And sometimes things go badly wrong, like it appears here.

But I don't agree that you should deal with a potentially violent situation yourself and try to get it "handled" before you contact the police, if you have a choice. If nothing else, I wouldn't want to have to answer why I DIDN'T feel concerned enough for my life and family to call the police, but did decide to go hunt down and kill a thief, vandal, burglar, etc.

Planning a sound defensive strategy for your home should help you avoid ever having this kind of an unfortunate end. Deciding ahead of time what to say to the dispatcher, where to be when the police arrive, and what you should be doing and not doing when they get there will go a long way. Saying if the police know someone's in the house with a gun then they're going to shoot someone who has a gun, period, seems highly irresponsible, and doesn't reflect the attitudes or procedures of any of the officers I've known.

Grin. Quote of the day.
well the dead guys friends mother and wife might think different. Sam remember the guy was still in the house and the dead guy knew his mother was on the first floor and he fired from the top of the stairs to scare the guy away then got shot. the guy was arrested still in the house and they did not say he had a gun. clic on the article to watch the video from the local news when I say I saw things on you tube they are the news reports, interviews with neighbors lawyers etc. and this incident will be there in a few days
 
If a criminal breaks into your house and you are home is there a legal requirement to even call the police? In other words are we as citizens allowed to make the choice between "Help! Somebody save me!" or "I got this..." ?
 
well the dead guys friends mother and wife might think different.
This is one incident where a bunch of things stacked up to lead to a pretty bad outcome. You can't look at any situation like that and then make a decision that this is what is likely to happen.

You're treating this like the lesson to be learned is "if you call the cops they'll shoot you." And that's a TERRIBLE lesson to take from this. Of course if CAN happen. But, a lot of things can happen. It doesn't mean that if you call the police because someone's breaking into your home they're LIKELY to shoot you.

Sam remember the guy was still in the house and the dead guy knew his mother was on the first floor and he fired from the top of the stairs to scare the guy away then got shot. the guy was arrested still in the house and they did not say he had a gun.
Yes, and as I said, this was a big pile of bad things that added up to get this guy killed. You can't really take a simplistic lesson away from it, especially not one that makes the police out to be somewhere between indiscriminate killers and downright enemies.
 
If a criminal breaks into your house and you are home is there a legal requirement to even call the police?
No, I've never heard of such a thing.
In other words are we as citizens allowed to make the choice between "Help! Somebody save me!" or "I got this..." ?
You're always allowed to make whatever choice you want.

There are some practical reasons why you might not want to go "lone wolf": the arrival of the police cars might scare the guy off, keeping you from having to shoot anyone. The police might apprehend him and get your stuff back, or put an end (however temporarily) to his crimes. The police might intercept his partner who's about to plug you after you "take care of" bad guy number 1. Etc., etc.

There are also some reasons of legal nuance which would make that a good idea: If you shoot and/or kill someone you're going to spend some time with police investigators and possibly prosecutors, juries, etc. Having called for assistance from the authorities helps present your narrative in a more favorable light, and that can be important. As some of our Castle Doctrine discussions have spelled out, just because someone's in your home, even illegally, doesn't always give you an unassailable right to kill them. It is always good to be able to show that you tried to do all you could to not have to fire that gun.

To put it in a bit of a stark light, you don't want to be answering questions like, "Mr. Drail, you armed yourself, went about your home/property and located the deceased, and then shot him dead. If you were so scared for your life, why didn't you at least call the police?"

And you don't want to be answering that question with something like, "Oh, I figured I've got this, I can take him! I don't need the police!"
 
This is one incident where a bunch of things stacked up to lead to a pretty bad outcome. You can't look at any situation like that and then make a decision that this is what is likely to happen.

You're treating this like the lesson to be learned is "if you call the cops they'll shoot you." And that's a TERRIBLE lesson to take from this. Of course if CAN happen. But, a lot of things can happen. It doesn't mean that if you call the police because someone's breaking into your home they're LIKELY to shoot you.

Yes, and as I said, this was a big pile of bad things that added up to get this guy killed. You can't really take a simplistic lesson away from it, especially not one that makes the police out to be somewhere between indiscriminate killers and downright enemies.
you are a good and fair guy Sam. what I am saying is if you call the cops and you have a gun that is visible wandering around outside your chances of being shot by them has increased. not if you call them and hide in the back room unarmed then you will not be shot. remember when civilians do something like this a whole slew of laws are passed. when govt does it nothing changes
 
Ahhh, well, maybe we're not so far apart then! I certainly agree that if you're visible, and armed, and acting with anything that might look like aggression (even toward someone you know to be a bad dude), and the police arrive in time to see that, you very well might catch a bullet.

That's really what I was meaning when I said there's better and worse ways of interacting with the authorities in a situation like this.

It appears to me this guy didn't maybe have much of a chance because his acts and circumstances put him on an intersection with arriving officers in the worst possible way. I think we could take away from this a bunch of pointers about how to try to avoid that kind of thing.
 
Felony murder requires you to commit a crime of violence. Depending on state definitions if the burglar was armed it might could as a violent crime. The initial charge might just be a holding charge.

Mike

Not necessarily.
In Arkansas the felony murder rule is defined as a death that is caused in the course of, in the furtherance of, or in the immediate flight of a felony.
The case must exhibit extreme indifference to the value of human life.

The felony offense need not be violent per se.

It can vary from state to state.
 
My answer to the question "why didn't you at least call the police?" would be "because I do not have a telephone". Many years ago when I did have a telephone I called the police to break up a rather violent riot out in the street in front of my house. A hour passed and no police showed up. The people who were fighting and breaking car windows left. 30 minutes later the police dispatcher called me and informed me they could not find the street I lived on and could I please give them directions. I kid you not. Currently I live out in the middle of nowhere miles from any town. Sometimes the Internet actually works out here. The roads are never plowed in the winter. If I were to call the County Sheriff who is located over 20 miles away I would estimate their response time would be VERY long. I understand that most people live in some sort of town but everyone's situation is different. Which brings us back to "I got this...."
 
Last edited:
Well that's a totally different answer (when presented to investigators or a jury) than a simple, "Don't need the police, I can take care of this guy myself.".

As always, the specific circumstances matter a LOT. If you've no phone then no one would wonder why you didn't call the police.
 
This is why I sleep in a chicken suit. It is very easy to tell dispatch "don't shoot the good guy in the chicken suit with the shotgun and machete" and not have the responding officers get confused. Being prepared is everything.
 
This is why I sleep in a chicken suit. It is very easy to tell dispatch "don't shoot the good guy in the chicken suit with the shotgun and machete" and not have the responding officers get confused. Being prepared is everything.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!
 
It happens. And events like this will happen more frequently as we get Justice to start rehabilitating reformed felons' gun rights (right now the program is entirely defunded/inert), since those folks typically come from & return to very crime-ridden areas, as no doubt was the case here.

TCB

A vacation of a conviction is not the same thing as a restoration of rights. It means an appeals judge through out the entire court case.

Usually this is caused by bad counsil or some sort of procedural error. It could be that evidence used should have or shouldn't have been admitted wasn't or was.

The prosecutor had to determine if she should try to prosecute the case again as if the first never happened based on the evidence that will be allowed in the new case.
 
I know that if my home is invaded, after grabbing a gun for self defense I will have my wife grab her cell phone and call 911. In addition to telling them the basics (that we are being invaded, home address, etc.) she will describe what I look like, what I am wearing, and that I am armed. I do not plan to go exploring my home in the dark, but will take a defensive position within my bedroom, and if time permits grab my Mossberg 500 and await the police. Hopefully these actions will reduce the likelihood of the police mistaking me for the burglar and reduce the risk of them shooting me. I realize that with adrenaline pumping I may end up leaving the bedroom to try to confront the intruder but even then, if the police know that the homeowner is armed, what I look like and what I am wearing, the chances that they shoot me should be reduced significantly.
Unfortunately, there have been many instances where dispatch does not relay all the information about homeowners, including descriptions. I wouldn't count on that to insure your safety.
 
There are also some reasons of legal nuance which would make that a good idea: If you shoot and/or kill someone you're going to spend some time with police investigators and possibly prosecutors, juries, etc. Having called for assistance from the authorities helps present your narrative in a more favorable light, and that can be important. As some of our Castle Doctrine discussions have spelled out, just because someone's in your home, even illegally, doesn't always give you an unassailable right to kill them. It is always good to be able to show that you tried to do all you could to not have to fire that gun.

To put it in a bit of a stark light, you don't want to be answering questions like, "Mr. Drail, you armed yourself, went about your home/property and located the deceased, and then shot him dead. If you were so scared for your life, why didn't you at least call the police?"

And you don't want to be answering that question with something like, "Oh, I figured I've got this, I can take him! I don't need the police!"
The actual combat for your life is only the first battle in a self defense shooting. One might be perfectly on the side of right, but prosecution may try their hardest to paint a different story to the jury. They can lie if they think they can fool the jury and get away with it.

A recorded 911 call may be the one thing that proves your testimony against a prosecutors lies.

Right or wrong, you need to consider the legal battle as well.
 
The actual combat for your life is only the first battle in a self defense shooting. One might be perfectly on the side of right, but prosecution may try their hardest to paint a different story to the jury. They can lie if they think they can fool the jury and get away with it.

A recorded 911 call may be the one thing that proves your testimony against a prosecutors lies.

Right or wrong, you need to consider the legal battle as well.
most prosecuters are as bad as the people they go after
 
After she was clear of the window, she said she yelled at police, "Please don't shoot me. I'm a victim. The guy's still in here."

From the way she worded her statement to the cops, maybe she wanted to get rid of her husband.o_O

She knew her husband had a gun. She didn't say, "My husband has a gun on him." She didn't describe her husband to them. Makes one wonder....
 
The Nation has changed regarding concealed weapons. Many states now allow citizens to carry firearms. This is a very dynamic change in the past 20 years.
Police have long regarded anyone who is armed a threat. Today this is totally wrong. The armed citizen is an Allie of law enforcement.
It is past time to train police on how to handle this societal change. The police are behind regarding this citizen freedom.:thumbup:
 
The Nation has changed regarding concealed weapons. Many states now allow citizens to carry firearms. This is a very dynamic change in the past 20 years.
Police have long regarded anyone who is armed a threat. Today this is totally wrong. The armed citizen is an Allie of law enforcement.
It is past time to train police on how to handle this societal change. The police are behind regarding this citizen freedom.:thumbup:
association of police chiefs are against expanded gun rights for citizens
 
association of police chiefs are against expanded gun rights for citizens

The National Association of Police Chiefs is kind of like the polar opposite of the officer on the street.
 
Reading the article from it's perspective, it's definitely tragic and a study in how to do a lot of things wrong.

Bear in mind the alarm did nothing to deter the perp getting into the home, nor did it actually protect a resident there from harm. Electronic alarms are not actual security. Perp got thru an opening regardless. I see people putting in alarm systems and the home has less constructive security than a chicken house. Fail. The money should have been spent on stronger openings and decent locks.

Not to forget the perps were hanging around in the neighborhood for days - and the local residents should have confronted them with video and calls to the cops to ID them. You don't win this war against criminals by sitting back and hiding from it.

Once inside no mention of what woke up the ex wife but the perp was in her eyesight? Let me politely suggest that if the inside alarm was going off, the neighbors should have been calling while the intruder was scrambling to get out. Secondly, it invites speculation as to whether the she could even gain consciousness under some ingested influence. The ex husband certainly didn't. If you see people appear in the hood it would seem the better course to be more vigiliant and make better decisions.

Once alerted the perp disappears, sirens in the distance took how long? Yet the intruder remained in the home apparently. No mention of him running, stumbling down the stairs etc. Ex husband grabs a gun and then does what? Checks on mom downstairs, which means clearing the house to do it.

I can't say what the chances of an intruder hiding in her room and hurting her are, but it's now getting out of hand. Then we have the ex wife shouting out the window and climbing out of it, shots being fired. By who? Nobody has said. The perp later apprehended was found with no gun, not saying he didn't ditch it, but we still have an armed resident who may have seen him and started shooting. However, if the perp was retreating? And with the cops outside in view of the doors and windows seeking cover from a shooter, then seeing the ex husband at a door with a gun?

This is a major trainwreck. It's tragic, yes, mostly because so much of it was self inflicted. Poor to non existent physical security, no intervention before the incident, poor tactics, and little to no idea of how to keep from being targeted as the bad guy yourself.

Think about it and then reflect on how similar your situation might be.
 
Salt & Bat, that is my point. Many police unions oppose this citizen right. There was a time when police officials condoned reactionary beatings.
They need to accept the will of the voters. Our Republic is opposed to a police state. The 2nd Amendment protects police and civilians.:thumbup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top