Sheriff makes no bones about right to self defense

[Skribs]

Reminds me of the episode of Chuck last night, where the girl heard a noise and grabbed the gun to go see what it was - turned out to be the paper boy had delivered the paper (at which point she realized she was being paranoid).

At first I thought like a lot of people in here..."shooting through the door means no target ID." Then again, how many friendlies would be trying to break through the door...

I've told my friends not to come over at night unannounced. None of them could get in anyway, but if I woke up and someone else was there, I'd probably shoot whether or not I could see the target clearly. I live alone, so there's no reason for anyone else to be here.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

FTA

The 82-year-old homeowner woke up at 6 a.m. after hearing someone at his backdoor, the report said. He armed himself with a .45 automatic and fired a single shot through the door, the report said. The suspected burglar was hit in the abdomen and likely died minutes later.

In which legal universe is that conclusive evidence that someone is breaking through the door or presents a threat?

 

[exavid]

It's a fruitless discussion about shooting through the door. We don't know the details. Could be like many doors it had a window. If someone in a ski mask was visible prying on my door I might react just as the homeowner did. I probably would try to stop the intruder rather than take a shot at him right away but again don't know the details of the affair enough to make an informed opinion.

 

[Derry 1946]

In this case, the perpetrator was in a ski mask, carrying a hammer and a screwdriver and, I think, a flashlight. He was later ID'd by cops in connection with a string of other burglaries. How much of this information could the homeonwer have had from inside the house? If the only information you have is a banging noise at the door, and you shoot, you could join the ranks of homeowners who shoot a drunk person who comes "home" to the wrong house and bangs on the door to wake up the missus. If, by contrast, you can tell from inside the house that the door is actually being breached, that's a very different story.

 

[we are not amused]

I suggest people actually watch the video and hear the Police Chief's statement before commenting.

First, the Law officer is the Chief of Daytona Police, not a sheriff.
The Chief clearly states that the door had been pried open by the deceased burglar. This was not some kid rattling the door or some drunk trying to get in the wrong house.

Plus, there is some additional video, from a later news cast, that clearly shows the door in question. A very large window is clearly evident above the bullet hole, as are the marks from the burglar attempting to enter the home.http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/volusia_news/011212-police-man-breaking-into-home-shot-to-death-by-homeowner

No way could this had been anything but an attempted break in.

I am kind of concerned about all the posters who are making disapproving comments.
Are they just idiots commenting on a situation that they are too lazy to make the minor effort to get the facts on, or do they really think you have to wait till the burglar is sticking a knife or bullet in you before you can react defensibly?

The homeowner acted properly, and is only to be congratulated on correctly evaluating the situation and acting appropriately.

 

[3KillerBs]

... If the only information you have is a banging noise at the door, and you shoot, you could join the ranks of homeowners who shoot a drunk person who comes "home" to the wrong house and bangs on the door to wake up the missus. ...

My issue with this scenario, which crops up very commonly in such discussions, is this, ...

Does a person who freely chooses to get so drunk that he can't tell his own house from someone else's house bear no responsibility for that fact if his attempts to break into what he mistakenly believes is his house put the legitimate homeowner in fear of the threat presented by a guy so drunk that he's acting irrationally?

 

[tnxdshooter]

That situation evidently turned out okay, but it might well not have. Shooting through a closed door at an unidentified potential threat outside your house??? You could kill the milkman.

Why would the milkman be jimmying the lock or trying the knob to get inside?


Sent from Droid Incredible on Verizon Wireless

 

[tnxdshooter]

The biggest point here, is the sherrif should not have approved of the homeowner's actions.

Shooting through a door? Not knowing your target and what's behind? A suspect not being inside a home, thus with no legitimate fear for one's life? All bad. This homeowner is very lucky he's not in jail.


It doesn't matter at all who the guy ended up being. The ends do not always justify the means. The homeowner lucked out. He shot through a door at an unknown target. That is not defensible.

If you believe this you have no business owning guns. This soundslike liberal rhetoric to me.


Sent from Droid Incredible on Verizon Wireless

 

[we are not amused]

This soundslike liberal rhetoric to me.


Sent from Droid Incredible on Verizon Wireless

Agreed! That comment could have come from the Brady campaign.

 

[Neverwinter]

First, the Law officer is the Chief of Daytona Police, not a sheriff.
The Chief clearly states that the door had been pried open by the deceased burglar. This was not some kid rattling the door or some drunk trying to get in the wrong house.

Plus, there is some additional video, from a later news cast, that clearly shows the door in question. A very large window is clearly evident above the bullet hole, as are the marks from the burglar attempting to enter the home.http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/volusia_news/011212-police-man-breaking-into-home-shot-to-death-by-homeowner

No way could this had been anything but an attempted break in.

I am kind of concerned about all the posters who are making disapproving comments.
Are they just idiots commenting on a situation that they are too lazy to make the minor effort to get the facts on, or do they really think you have to wait till the burglar is sticking a knife or bullet in you before you can react defensibly?

I think that it may be a conditioned response to the past posts on here which seemed to justify a bad response on the part of the shooter(eg. shooting a mistaken drunk or lost exchange student looking for a party).

Agreed! That comment could have come from the Brady campaign.

Yes, because disapproving of a person who acts in violation of the fourth rule of gun safety is clearly a Brady campaign supporter.

 

[we are not amused]

If it is dark, and somebody is kicking in my door, and doesn't respond to a challenge, I am going to fire through that door!

If it is the police, or firefighters or a drunk neighbor, they damn well better respond to a challenge, or they will be shot!

In this particular case, there was a very large window above the bullet hole.

 

[Neverwinter]

Obviously, you are one of those who doesn't bother to get the facts before posting.

See the second video, which I linked to.

The post said nothing about claiming a bad response from the shooter, only that the quoted post was due to an instinctual response to previous defenses of incidents which were bad shoots.

Is, or is not the defending of one of the 4 rules of gun safety something that only a Brady campaign supporter would do?

 

[we are not amused]

Neverwinter, you obviously still have not looked at the second video I linked to, or you would be aware there was a large window above the bullet hole in the door.
The burglar would have been very visible through this window. The homeowner did not "blindly" fire through the door.
Get your facts straight before you post.

 

[Neverwinter]

Neverwinter, you obviously still have not looked at the second video I linked to, or you would be aware there was a large window above the bullet hole in the door.
The burglar would have been very visible through this window. The homeowner did not "blindly" fire through the door.
Get your facts straight before you post.

The fact that the defender was not blindly firing through the door wasn't even in contention for my posts. What was under contention and specifically quoted, was the post which claimed that only a Brady campaign supporter could say that it was wrong to disobey the 4th rule. The post specifically didn't mention the inapplicability of the 4th rule violation to this incident, but that it was wrong(ie. being a Brady supporter) to support a rule of safety.

It does not look for the rest of us in the community to be disagreeing with our very own rules of safety.

 

[we are not amused]

The fact that the poster had his facts wrong, is what people like the Brady Campaign do.

Ragnar Danneskjold had his facts wrong, just like the Brady Campaign people do.

I know, I just repeated myself, but I wanted you to comprehend what I said in my first post.
So you are supporting somebody who got his facts wrong and couldn't be bothered to get them right.

The forth rule is irrelevant here, because there is no evidence the homeowner violated it.

Now, you will claim that that is irrelevant, and we must all follow "The FOUR RULES OF GUN SAFETY" as if they were engraved in stone, completely ignoring the fact that the homeowner in this case could see his attacker, and that Ragnar had his facts wrong when he made his irresponsible statement, and that I am wrong when suggesting people, including you, should get their facts right before making inflamatory postings.

My mistake. I apologize. Of course we should all make irresponsible statements when we don't know the facts.

 

[exavid]

Actually I'd say from the further information that the 4th rule wasn't violated because the guy had a window in the door. Most likely he'd lived there for long enough to know what was behind that door and could see no one around other than the miscreant. This incident is a lot like the sometimes inexplicable findings of courts. Once one gets all the facts the really strange decisions usually make sense. It's way too easy for any of us to jump to a conclusion, it's not all that easy to jump to a good conclusion.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

We are not amused,

I appreciate your attempts to clear up facts in this thread. But referring to other posters as "idiot" is a personal attack and a violation of THR guidelines. I know you're relatively new, so I'm sure you just didn't read up on the guidelines before posting.

 

[bubba1]

For reference, here is the door in question:

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

On top of everything, this was the BACK DOOR. Not the usual entry for people who need to be there like the paper boy, milkman, etc. Back doors often have windows and in this case it is clear that the victim was able to be sure of his target.

So now that we understand that the victim was acting correctly, as a former Californian and Bay Area resident I salute the officer for supporting the victim so strongly. God knows the poor victim probably appreciates it as well.

 

[we are not amused]

I appologize for using the term idiot for people who make unwarranted assumptions based upon incomplete information.

I must admit that I am frequently frustrated by people who seem to try and find fault with the actions of other people based upon incomplete facts.

The Chief of Daytona Police seemed satisfied that the home owner made an appropriate response, but some still sought to find fault with the actions of the homeowner.

The additional News story and video clip was easily found, there was a link to it from the original news site. It clearly showed the rather large window, making claims that the homeowner shot blindly through the door seem irresponsible.

I understand that some people had not seen the additional video, which is why I posted the link.
You made some statements such as "The biggest point here is that the Sheriff should not have approved of the home owner's actions." Based upon what font of knowledge was that statement based on? The story did not give enough detail for anyone to second guess the Law Officer on the spot. Since most Law Enforcement officers do not encourage "Blindly firing through doors", it seems reasonable to assume that was not what happened, of if it did, there were other factors not mentioned, involved.

I have noticed that no matter what action takes place, there are some people who seem determined to find fault with it. Such as in this case. Fine, reasonable questions as to what happened, are in order. Suggestions as to handling it differently may be appropriate. But blindly trying to find fault with the actions of a homeowner involved in a self defense shooting, who has been given an endorsement of approval by the local Chief Law Enforcement Officer seems to be contrary to the purpose and spirit of THR. Which, I have been reminded is suppose to present a good face to the public, and not seek to make all gun owners look like Neanderthals.

 

[jojo200517]

I see no problem with what the home owner did, and i'm glad the law enforcement embraced his actions. There is a bit of difference between someone knocking on ya door or rattling the knob and someone trying to pry it open.

For everyone saying "oh noes it coulda been the milk man" I have gotta ask where in the heck do you guys live that you still get your milk delivered to your house?? Seriously, it might be going on in a few countries but I doubt there is any milkmen left in America and in my 24 years I never recall it being delivered to my house by anyone other than me or my folks from the grocery store. As for the "paper boy" thing, he should be tossing it on the driveway porch or in the paper box not rattling away at the back door. Sheesh use some common sense.

 

[exavid]

Good move on the homeowner's part, lots easier to plug a bullet hole than buy a new piece of glass.

 

[gym]

I don't like the closed door part either, allows people to think it's ok to shoot through a door without knowing what's on the other side. Should have either laid in wait, or just opened the door quickllly and then made the decision using cover of the side wall. I think back to that kid who was shot because he knocked on the wrong address a few years back, and didn't speak english. He got gunned down for nothing.
Lot of seniors have a shoot first attitude, now that they can legally carry, or own a weapon. Targeting and knowledge of the situation is crucial prior to taking a life.
Even leos will tell you there is a big difference between a career burgler some of which, never carried a weapon, and a stick up artist, Robbery team or crew. I am not saying they aren't all bad guys, but the death penalty for breaking into a home should only be used as a last resort, the guy may have just taken a knee, and waited for police. You can always shoot him if he moves to go for a weapon, but shot through a door, is pushing it, in my opinion. It could have killed a neighbor. And if it did it would have been a black eye for all of us. I know someone is going to say ,'anyone who comes in my house is a dead man" but having been there, it's a last resort, not a starting point.

 

[Derry 1946]

For clarification, I am not criticizing the homeowner in any way whatsoever. I am merely urging caution in shooting through doors. "Know your target and what's behind it."

 

[exavid]

Gym seems to be over thinking this whole episode. Look at the door in question. There's a big glass window so the homeowner could easily see what's going on. The paper boy usually doesn't show up with a ski mask and prybars. I sincerely doubt this incident will cause many people to think that it's okay to fire through doors when they hear noises. I normally think most people are intelligent and don't need 'rules' akin those idiotic 'zero tolerance' rules used in schools nowadays.
One's reaction to a threat is going to fit the occasion, each is going to be different and the person threatened is the only one at that moment who can make that decision. No matter what action the threatened person takes if he survives there will be no lack of second guessers who sit calmly pontificating on how the threatened person should have done something different. I hope those nit pickers are calm enough to do the right thing if their turn comes.