TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:He should not have fired through the door. He should have called 911, yelled at them that he had called the police and taken cover behind a couch, another doorway, or whatever and waited. If they tried to force the door, as soon as it started to come open, unload on them.

No excuse for firing through a door that is closed and locked. He killed a man that was not an immediate threat to him.

Bad situation.

I'm just curious. How do you know that the door was closed and locked? How do you know the man wasn't an immediate threat? I didn't see anything in the article that indicated either of those two facts.

ISTM we are far too quick to judge without knowing all the facts. We make assumptions based upon our own biases of how we would handle a similar situation without knowing the details that could well change our minds.

VoiceofReason wrote:He should not have fired through the door. He should have called 911, yelled at them that he had called the police and taken cover behind a couch, another doorway, or whatever and waited. If they tried to force the door, as soon as it started to come open, unload on them.

No excuse for firing through a door that is closed and locked. He killed a man that was not an immediate threat to him.

Bad situation.

I believe this a lack of training and prepardness on the shooters part, once a life is taken it cannot be returned.

reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

Not saying that he was right but this may be his saving grace. Like someone else mentioned I would have called 911 from behind the cover of our couch with the business end aimed at the door.

From the article:

The stabbing victim and a friend went down the street, trying to find help.

According to investigators, they knocked on the door of a nearby home around 2am Sunday, but the homeowner did not know what was happening and fired a gun through the door.

The stabbing victim's friend was shot. He died on the homeowner's doorstep, police said.

Granted the article can be wrong or have left things out, but from this I think the home owner is going to be in trouble. The victim was looking for help, not to break in and probably not making threats. The home owner didn't know what was happening. He didn't know. I would know if someone was threatening me or if they were trying to break in.

We'll see what the Grand Jury says. I think they will charge the home owner.

Do we have something called Negligent Homicide here in Texas? That's what this sounds like to me.

baldeagle wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:He should not have fired through the door. He should have called 911, yelled at them that he had called the police and taken cover behind a couch, another doorway, or whatever and waited. If they tried to force the door, as soon as it started to come open, unload on them.

No excuse for firing through a door that is closed and locked. He killed a man that was not an immediate threat to him.

Bad situation.

I'm just curious. How do you know that the door was closed and locked? How do you know the man wasn't an immediate threat? I didn't see anything in the article that indicated either of those two facts.

ISTM we are far too quick to judge without knowing all the facts. We make assumptions based upon our own biases of how we would handle a similar situation without knowing the details that could well change our minds.

I don’t know the door was closed and locked. You are right I was stating what I would do in a similar situation.

The article stated he fired through the door. Logic indicates there must have been a door between him and his intended targets and he did not see who he was shooting at (“the homeowner did not know what was happening and fired a gun through the door”). The article did not say the door was forced open, kicked open, or opened in any manner.

If the door was still closed (whether locked or not) and they were not shooting at him, they were not an immediate threat.

Of course no one can know exactly what happened unless they were standing behind and slightly to one side of the homeowner when it happened, but my point is that no one should shoot through a door without seeing who is on the other side and having a good idea of what their intentions are.

I don’t know about you but even if I wasn’t charged for a shooting such as this, it would eat at me for a long time that I killed someone looking for help.

On the basis of the very few facts presented, I do not see nearly enough information to come to any valid good shoot / bad shoot conclusion at this point.

However, I do see several things at work here that are worth noting:

1. During the first couple of minutes after being startled out of bed by excited persons pounding on the front door most folks are not at the top of their game in the area of judgment.

2. People who have not previously managed a lot of potentially dangerous situations, some of which turned out to be really dangerous and others which turned out to be something else entirely, tend to focus on the "this is it - the attack I've always feared" conclusion to the exclusion of other possibilities. Once started down this track, observations which may have multiple potential interpretations are only seen through this lens.

3. Folks who haven't done a lot of thinking situations through (like the very valuable activity that goes on in this Forum constantly) don't have a plan they can fall back on and execute. Instead they act impulsively - and often unwisely.

This combination is a recipe for tragedy.

Excaliber wrote:3. Folks who haven't done a lot of thinking situations through (like the very valuable activity that goes on in this Forum constantly) don't have a plan they can fall back on and execute. Instead they act impulsively - and often unwisely.

Like wandering into neighborhoods and knocking on doors in the middle of the night. Cell phones are so common today that even people getting handouts at a soup kitchen can snap photos of Michelle Obama with their camera phones. If the stabbed guy or the shot guy had a cell phone, that might have saved their lives. Even if they didn't have one, they could have asked someone else at the wedding party to call 911 instead of wandering out into the darkness. No plan.

Obi-Juan wrote:

Excaliber wrote:3. Folks who haven't done a lot of thinking situations through (like the very valuable activity that goes on in this Forum constantly) don't have a plan they can fall back on and execute. Instead they act impulsively - and often unwisely.

Like wandering into neighborhoods and knocking on doors in the middle of the night. Cell phones are so common today that even people getting handouts at a soup kitchen can snap photos of Michelle Obama with their camera phones. If the stabbed guy or the shot guy had a cell phone, that might have saved their lives. Even if they didn't have one, they could have asked someone else at the wedding party to call 911 instead of wandering out into the darkness. No plan.

They might even have had cell phones and didn't think to use them.

Good plans are hard to come up with under stress, and what is obvious later isn't at the time it's most needed.

Excaliber wrote:They might even have had cell phones and didn't think to use them.

Good plans are hard to come up with under stress, and what is obvious later isn't at the time it's most needed.

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

baldeagle wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:He should not have fired through the door. He should have called 911, yelled at them that he had called the police and taken cover behind a couch, another doorway, or whatever and waited. If they tried to force the door, as soon as it started to come open, unload on them.

No excuse for firing through a door that is closed and locked. He killed a man that was not an immediate threat to him.

Bad situation.

I'm just curious. How do you know that the door was closed and locked? How do you know the man wasn't an immediate threat? I didn't see anything in the article that indicated either of those two facts.

ISTM we are far too quick to judge without knowing all the facts. We make assumptions based upon our own biases of how we would handle a similar situation without knowing the details that could well change our minds.

I agree AND I don't trust the media, who often slant a story to make self-defense sound unreasonable. Here's what the article actually says:

"The groom and his brother tried to enter the home by kicking and beating on the door."

It doesn't say they knocked on the door, it says they tried to enter by kicking and beating on the door. And while firing through the door may usually be unreasonable I can think of one situation where it is not: someone is forcing the door open while you're trying to hold it shut against them --in which case shooting through the door might be your only alternative. As you say, the article doesn't give us all the facts. Maybe this guy opened the door with the chain or latch still on and that's when they tried to enter, kicking and beating on the door --we don't know.

I smell a lot of alcohol in this scenario ... people normally (at least among people I know) don't fight at weddings.

hangfour wrote:I smell a lot of alcohol in this scenario ... people normally (at least among people I know) don't fight at weddings.

Yeah, that part comes later.

They say that in a marriage a man and a woman become one. After that they argue about which one.

boba wrote:

philip964 wrote:My vote the grand jury says manslaughter.

We'll know in a few weeks or maybe months.

If you're curious about the neighborhood, you can go to Google street view and look around.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=epsom+at+ ... yAWq9KSnAw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow.... delightful area. Is it me, or is that neighborhood just the tiniest bit worn out looking?