This is for everybody who continues to insist that anyone in their home is a threat

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,926
Location
Alma Illinois
"Yep, if he's in my house, he's dead where he stands!" If I had a nickel for every time I've read that or a similar statement here on THR I could afford to restock with 5.56mm training ammo.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...6A3353B8CD7C640A862573C5001967A7?OpenDocument
Chaplain shoots brother-in-law during practical joke
By Christine Byers
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
01/03/2008

FESTUS — Police believe that a practical joke led to the shooting of a 23-year-old Ste. Genevieve police officer Tuesday.

The rookie officer allegedly faked a break-in around 9:45 p.m. at his brother-in-law's home in Festus, said Festus Police Chief Tim Lewis.

"He didn't tell the family he was coming and decided to sneak in the back door," Lewis said. "The resident asked him to call out who he was, and he didn't, and he shot him."

A short time later, Festus police noticed a car speeding and running red lights along Veterans Boulevard to Jefferson Memorial Hospital. Officers recognized the driver as an on-call minister for the Festus Police Department, Lewis said.

"Once there, officers asked him what happened, and he said, 'I shot my brother-in-law,'" Lewis said, adding that the victim was in the back seat. "It looks like an unfortunate set of circumstances, a joke gone horribly, horribly wrong. They always like to play practical jokes on each other."

The bullet lodged in the victim's lower abdomen. Police would not release his name or the shooter's name because the investigation is ongoing.

The Jefferson County sheriff's office is handling the investigation. Jefferson County Lt. Dave Marshak said, "It is very preliminary at this point, but it does appear to be an unfortunate accident."

Ste. Genevieve Police Chief Dale Newman said the officer has worked there since June, and his brother-in-law was about to become an on-call chaplain for Ste. Genevieve, as well.

Newman said the victim had surgery and was in stable condition Wednesday at Barnes-Jewish Hospital.

[email protected] | 636-500-4106
Click to expand...

I never could understand how someone could advocate shooting a target not identified as hostile. I've listened to all the statements about how it couldn't happen to a member because: "my doors are never unlocked" "everyone in my family knows not to do things like that" et al.... I would bet the shooter thought the same thing as he pressed the trigger and shot his brother in law.

Jeff
 
"He didn't tell the family he was coming and decided to sneak in the back door," Lewis said. "The resident asked him to call out who he was, and he didn't, and he shot him."

If you fail to identify, I am going to assume that you are hostile.

Every one of my friends and family know that they need to clearly identify themselves. If the door is unlocked, and you walk into my house, you need to be hollering, "Hello! It's me, Jeff! Hello!" Even my wife and kids do this.

The brother-in-law paid for his stupidity with his life.

Nio
 
Life happens. There are few absolutes. *Do not pull that trigger until you're pretty damn sure the target needs to die*. 'Cause that may be what occurs. Ain't pretty, ain't clean, and it sure as hell ain't Hollywood.

Biker
 
I have a good sense of humor but the nature of this type of prank is inherently dangerous.
 
I'd say the legality of this should depend on whether his doors were locked or not.

If he had them locked and he still broke in as a joke, I'd say he'd be legally justified because a reasonable and thinking person seeing a person breaking in at night with stealth and not identifying himself when asked would believe that he's there to either commit a felony on the home or is there to commit violence or force.

However if he had his doors unlocked, I'd vote that as far as torts go, he should be somewhat responsible because he had some control over the situation making him jointly responsible. An intelligent person who is sincerely concerned about safety and not looking to shoot at everything is going to lock his door!

The penal code for my state, Utah, doesn't allow you to shoot everything that comes inside your habitation. It says that first they have to come in unlawfully, then either a or b: A - they come in violently, forcefully, or stealthly and you reasonably believe that deadly force is needed to stop personal violence or assault on your habitation. OR B - you reasonably believe they're there to commit a felony inside your habitation and you believe deadly force is needed to stop it. Then my penal code says that for both criminal and civil purposes you're presumed to have acted reasonably if you do it in that way. So, if you come home and see a homeless mother and child sitting by your furnace shivering, you can't just say, "Hmmm, I have a gun and the fact that they are in my home is like having a tag to go elk hunting!"

But then Jeff does makes a point, whether your shot is legal/illegal and no matter how stupid they were, if it's a family relative and they honestly didn't mean any harm you'd feel quite bad if you severely injured them. I mean, no one's that heartless?
 
Pull the tail of the dog and you're bound to get bit.

The guy faked a break in, then failed to identify himself. And now, the homeowner will hesitate out of doubt the next time this happens, when he should be reacting.

And the guy that did it was a cop and now he has a bullet in his stomach. Bet he doesn't do that again.

Ron White was wrong. It looks like you CAN fix stupid.
 
I have plenty of idiot friends (with professional jobs) who wouldn't think twice to pull something like this on me...

Luckily I have always been trained to shoot only what I can visually identify, and I have dogs as my early warning system.
 
Stpidity is painful. Sometimes it is even fatal.

There is no legitimate reason for a person to be in my house and fail to identify himself.

Even if that statement is not strictly true 100% of the time, it will be true enough of the time that I (and the Texas legislature) will presume that it's true all the time.

In some traffic accidents a seatbelt or airbag will be what kills you. I still wear my seatbelt every time I get in the car. It is possible that in a violent confrontation my gun will be used against me. Yet I'll continue to carry one.
 
I never could understand how someone could advocate shooting a target not identified as hostile.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how the homeowner is supposed to tell the difference between someone breaking into an occupied dwelling and someone "just pretending" to do so. As Tallpine correctly noted, breaking in is breaking in. There is no "just pretending" to.

It appears to have been a good shot, because the belief in an imminent threat from home invasion was reasonable. What kind of IDIOT tries to "fake" a break in? Lord help the Festus gene pool.
 
No matter how legal it is, wouldn't you feel bad?

I don't think that Jeff's trying to say that he wasn't legally justified nor that the guy wasn't acting stupid, I think he's saying that you'd feel bad if you just shot one of your relatives regardless if was justified, so be careful about having the attitude that you're going to shoot at everything that moves around in your home. It says that he was married, people sometimes even shoot spouses because they didn't know it was them.

I've heard from several sources that usually when a police officer shoots and kills someone when carrying out their official police duty, they typically feel so bad that they change jobs, even if it was legally justified. In the book "In the Gravest Extreme", it says that if you shoot someone in self-defense, there will be emotional aspects to it.
 
The article doesn't say so, but the description of the incident would lead one to believe that the homeowner fired at an unidentified figure. If he had much of a view at all, he would most likely have recognized his brother in law.

I'm happy that so many of you live in free fire zones where you fire your final protective fires every time the breeze rattles the pebbles in the cans you have strung up in the concertina and tangle foot you have strung around your perimeter.

If you aren't responsible enough to identify your target before you shoot then maybe you should rethink your personal defensive strategies. People who aren't responsible enough to identify their target aren't responsible enough to own firearms or sharp objects like steak knives or pointed scissors.

I can't believe that we have members here advocating shooting a target they can't identify. :uhoh:

Jeff
 
Jeff, calling out at an intruder *IS* the identification effort. Indeed it's more than enough. You don't have to risk using tactical lights or checking ID's before you fire at an unresponsive INTRUDER in your own home. Here is the scenario as I see it:

--Man breaks into occupied dwelling
--Man is in the darkness
--Home owner encounters man and calls out
--Man remains absolutely silent

At that point, given what we know, these seem reasonable conclusions for the home owner:

--That the man has broken in at night
--That the man now knows the dwelling is occupied, but doesn't care
--That the man must realize he doesn't belong, because he doesn't call out
--That the man is hiding in darkness
--That the man continues to hide in darkness even after being called out to ID himself
--That the man is nobody the HO would recognize, else he would call out

I suppose the home owner could continue to call out and dig around for a light, but if Man is a real danger then home owner will be very dead.

The lesson is, if you pretend to be a home invader someone might actually shoot you. If you expect to get 100% perfect identification of a home invader before you have to decide whether to shoot or die, you're being very unrealistic.

When confronted, the bad guys don't call out "I'm a goblin here to kill you and rape your kids!" But they may stay silent and wait until they have a bead on you.
 
1) always positively identify your target.

2) don't shoot unless you absolutely have to.

admittedly hard to do in practice, but something we should all strive for.

i wish the victim a speedy recovery.
 
I'm happy that so many of you live in free fire zones where you fire your final protective fires every time the breeze rattles the pebbles in the cans you have strung up in the concertina and tangle foot you have strung around your perimeter.
Click to expand...

I actually shoot at my front door with a 12 ga shotgun each time the wind rattles it a little. Can't ever be too safe. I've had to buy 8 new doors in the last month. J/K, I don't really.

But yea, I don't think it would be a good idea to have the attitude that you're going to shoot at everything that comes inside no matter what the situation is. Even if it seems justified, you can't always guarentee that all jury members will think the same way as gun owners do. Just imagine if everyone on the jury was a bunch of Hilary Clintons? :what::what::what:
 
Cosmoline,
Why does the shooter have to dig for a light? Why can't he just turn the lights on? Calling out a challenge is not IDing the subject as hostile. Unless you happen to live on the front lines and the subject isn't responding to the challenge with the proper password, you have no business shooting at shadowy figures.

There are too many ways to avoid a friendly fire incident that won't compromise your safety. We have had lights in our homes for a long time. You don't need a high speed low drag tactical flashlight, all you need is the danged light switch.

Jeff
 
Well, to play Devil's advocate...just what exactly does "identify" mean in a life-or-death situation? The set up was someone purposely putting somebody else in fear for their life as a joke. He took the necessary steps to ensure it was believable (it had to be believable to work as a joke).

If he had much of a view at all, he would most likely have recognized his brother in law.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not.

Was he wearing a mask? Article doesn't say. Was he purposefully obscuring the view of himself in some way? All we know is the brother in law deliberately wanted to appear like a home invader...and succeeded.

Since this scenario is a one-in-a-million, Darwin candidate circumstance, which is more likely, a real home invasion or an idiot playing a joke? The shooter established that it wasn't his family (in residence) and the verbal warning established to a reasonable degree it wasn't a friend or visiting family who surely would announce themselves when challenged (or not barge in in the first place).

If there is an intruder in your home that does not respond to a challenge and doesn't live there...that seems like good (at least decent all things considered) ID to me. We don't know enough details, he could have fired at a figure with a face obscured, but weapon present. Deliberately put someone in fear for their life at '0 dark thirty and continue to act suspicious...well...I don't expect a reasonable person to be able to see through a pre-planned ruse under stress. I expect them to hold fire and get a good enough ID to prevent a true accident or mistaken ID like a family member getting a late night snack or a rebellious teen sneaking back in. His challenge would have solved those reasonable and expected situations.

Perfect world yes, circumstances allow you to see their face with time to still safely make a shoot/no-shoot decision. Many things outside of our control can make waiting for that 100% positive ID a very dangerous trade off.

This idiot recklessly endangered himself, criminal negligence. It wasn't an accident. Just an unfortunate and avoidable set of circumstances.

That isn't all to say the homeowner couldn't have gotten a more positive ID, perhaps he could have. If he reasonably and safely could have...he should have.
 
I believe my track record will show that I'm NOT a "someone breaks in and they are dead" type but sorry Jeff, this time I have to disagree with you.

I've had a number of incidents I had to write up where the person who got shot/stabbed/hit with frying pan/bit by dog/etc. claimed "it was just a prank". Sometimes it was a prank, several times it was the start of an "inside job" so even if I identified the person in my house as someone I knew, I'm gonna be wondering just what the hell he/she was doing there.

I'm sure the homeowner feels badly, no right thinking person likes to harm another, but let's look at problem ownership here. The guy who got shot initiated this whole chain of events with his stupidity.

and folks, please stop calling the idiot a victim. The homeowner who had his house entered, who was intentionally frightened, and who felt threatened enough to defend himself is still the only actual victim in this scenario. The other person was a trespasser, prank or not.
 
Nio said:
If you fail to identify, I am going to assume that you are hostile.
Click to expand...
Yep.
Dallas239 said:
Stupidity is painful. Sometimes it is even fatal.
Click to expand...
Yep.

I'm not saying Officer BIL was stupid,but that wasn't a smart thing to do.

Sure Jeff,we should identify the intruder. We don't know the situation here though. And even though "calling out a challenge is not IDing the subject as hostile",it's not unreasonable to assume that if he don't answer,he's up to no good. I'm not gonna sneak into your house and not answer when you ask for ID and snicker to myself,thinking ,"Tee hee hee,I sure got Jeff this time! Wait until he sees it's only 2TransAms!". There's a good chance I may get shot instead.

I do wish the trespasser a speedy recovery.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Police Chief Speaks the Truth about the Value of Restraining Orders
Replies
17
Views
2K
lostone1413
L
M
  • Locked
Failed 'Home Invasion'
Replies
8
Views
1K
biscuitninja
B
M
  • Locked
The man brought a gun to a gunfight, but still lost
Replies
12
Views
1K
YammyMonkey
Y
G
  • Locked
Police deny giving special treatment to deputy's son
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Gunfire
G
B
  • Locked
E'town man killed in home
Replies
15
Views
866
MICHAEL T
M
Back
Top