Man Shoots Lost Alzheimer's Patient Thinking He's A "Prowler"

[Gravekeeper]

While he did a lot of stupid things and made a horrible error in judgement, he didn't shoot first and ask questions later. You're twisting the meaning to try and fit the scenario.

According to ABC, the police were only 5 minutes away too and just to make it more tragic, the police had to physically remove one of his dogs. Who had laid down on top of him to protect him after he was shot.

That bring's the total police response time to 15 minutes. You couldn't stay in the god damn house for 15 minutes?

[kamn]

As Andara already said: The guy did NOT shoot first, without thought. Saying that he did means that you are ignoring key parts of the reported story. Namely:

"[Hendrix] gave several what he described as verbal commands," Wilson said. "[Westbrook] continued walking toward him after he told him to stop."

I will agree that he should have stayed inside, as would anyone else, but that is hindsight. I will agree that better course of action could have been taken, but I can understand and cannot fault the man, for taking the actions he did, if what the report says is true. But that's up to court.
As for police, while yes, they were on the way, some (not even remote) areas have response time of upward of 15. That is PLENTY of time to get robbed. Protecting one's property is, or should be, within everyones rights.
I am unaware of how gun practice goes, such as trigger discipline, so I cannot judge based on that.

And anyone thinking an Alzheimer patient is a harmless individual. No, they are not. They are still (somewhat) strong, they are still capable of doing almost everything anyone else their age is capable (and judging by my grandmother, that is a LOT). They can still fight, they can still struggle. The ability to do so is not lost, the reasoning where, when, and why, are. Saying that the man was trying to get in. That is stated. Not knowing the man is an Alzheimer patient, and the dim light, one could easily confuse him for an actual burglar. The presence of dogs makes the situation even more tense, though now that we can THINK about it, which he probably couldn't, makes it weird for a burglar.
I can understand why he did what he did, and I cannot fault him for it, merely lament it. I have yet to find a way or reason that a persecution would be needed, though an investigation most certainly is. The man, if everything checks out, did nothing wrong, legaly or moraly.

[Gravekeeper]

As for police, while yes, they were on the way, some (not even remote) areas have response time of upward of 15. That is PLENTY of time to get robbed. Protecting one's property is, or should be, within everyones rights.

The problem is the wife remained on the phone with 911 and thus had he stayed in the house with her, he'd likely have known the ETA. Secondly, the guy was turning he knob and ringing the doorbell. He wasn't kicking the door down.

Typically speaking you are not permitted to use lethal force to protect your property unless the assailant is actually inside your home and thus a threat to you or your family.

And anyone thinking an Alzheimer patient is a harmless individual. No, they are not. They are still (somewhat) strong, they are still capable of doing almost everything anyone else their age is capable (and judging by my grandmother, that is a LOT). They can still fight, they can still struggle.

Yes, but the problem is this guy had been out in freezing temperatures he wasn't dressed for, for over four hours and had already walked over 5 km. I doubt he was in much shape to do anything at all. Even the shooter only said that he was walking towards him, not running.

Not knowing the man is an Alzheimer patient, and the dim light, one could easily confuse him for an actual burglar. The presence of dogs makes the situation even more tense, though now that we can THINK about it, which he probably couldn't, makes it weird for a burglar.

Burglars don't tend to walk 2 dogs around your house, no. The homeowner also had a dog as well. So the best course of action for someone afraid for their safety is stay inside with the gun and the dog with the cops on the phone and protect your wife.

Not go outside in the dark and confront the threat you claim to be scared of. Never mind the fact if it was too dark for him to see the victim, it was likely also too dark for the victim to see him and his gun.

The man, if everything checks out, did nothing wrong, legaly or moraly.

Seriously? You don't get to go outside and kill someone for ringing your doorbell. The only reason charges are even up in the air here is because of another fucked up Stand Your Ground law.

[kamn]

The problem is the wife remained on the phone with 911 and thus had he stayed in the house with her, he'd likely have known the ETA. Secondly, the guy was turning he knob and ringing the doorbell. He wasn't kicking the door down.

While true, it doesn't make it any less of a "I am getting in here" situation. He simply didn't break the door down yet.

Typically speaking you are not permitted to use lethal force to protect your property unless the assailant is actually inside your home and thus a threat to you or your family.

Alright, granted, I am not as familliar with the law as I should be, given my previous statement. Legally, he might not have as much ground to stand on, but I still say that fearing for his life and property, he didn't do anything I can condemn him for. I think he was bloody stupid for leaving his fiance, trying to confront the "intruder", but it's not unheard of, nor, in some cases, unwise.

Yes, but the problem is this guy had been out in freezing temperatures he wasn't dressed for, for over four hours and had already walked over 5 km. I doubt he was in much shape to do anything at all. Even the shooter only said that he was walking towards him, not running.

It also means he was shivering and constantly moving toward the shooter. Again, dim light and adrenaline will make you see things that are not there, if given enough incentive and material.

Not go outside in the dark and confront the threat you claim to be scared of. Never mind the fact if it was too dark for him to see the victim, it was likely also too dark for the victim to see him and his gun.

You can see basic shapes in almost pitch dark. He saw the silhouette, and DID let him know that he was there, simply by speaking. Nothing about the gun, but that's hindsight.

Seriously? You don't get to go outside and kill someone for ringing your doorbell. The only reason charges are even up in the air here is because of another fucked up Stand Your Ground law.

No, you don't. You also don't escalate to gunfire the moment a stranger is in your house uninvited. You match whatever threat the other party is giving you, and then slowly escalate it until they back down. If that means brandishing your weapon, so be it. If it means firing a warning shot, so be it. In a situation, where you are forced to defend yourself and your loved ones and your property, you try to be civil, but you defend it to the best of your abilities.

If I may, you seem to viewing this from the eyes of hindsight, where you know all the details. What did Mr. Hendrix know? A man woke him up by ringing a doorbell. A man is creeping around the house. Police have been called, will likely take a while to get here. Someone is trying to get in. My fiance might get in danger, the silverware/laptop already are. I have a handgun. I'll go out and stop him from taking everything, or at least dissuade them. Maybe get a good look. Sure as hell not gonna be a victim. I get out on the hallway, there's a man in the backyard. He's walking toward me. I tell him to stop. He keeps walking, nothing else, no words, no nothing. He keeps fidgeting though. Adrenaline kicks in fully, if it hasn't already, it looks like he's coming on faster. He was fidgeting cos he was getting his weapon. Im dead if I don't react. Shoot in the general direction, hope to scare him away. Bloody tragedy happens, that noone desires, but it happens.
Now, of course, this is my interpretation of events, but I accounted, or tried to, most of the story given. In this, he made some bloody stupid decisions (both leaving the room, and his fiance, and trying to confront an unkown, as well as shooting at an unkown), but not completely illogical ones.

[Kelmon]

A-hem. The process of acquiring a hand gun in Canada:

[snip]

Still sounds easy. None of those requirements sound tough.

NJ, one gun per month.
Handguns must be registered.
Concealed carry isn't allowed for anyone who isn't law enforcement.
No "assault" weapons.
15 round maximum.

Add to all this the need to prove for each firearm you intent to buy that you need it for a certain purpose, and you pretty much have the gun restrictions in my country (Germany).
Valid purposes are, for example, being a member in a gun association for at least 1 year or longer (depending on the association) and training regularly during that time or being a licensed hunter (meaning 60 hours of theoretical, 60 hours of practical lessons)
Oh, and:
- One gun every 6 months.
- all registered, of course
- Except on shooting ranges and hunting grounds - no taking them out of secure storage containers. So...no "carry" of any kind
- Owning any sort of automatic weapon is impossible for "civilians"
- 10 round maximum for hunting weapons (basically - all rifles)
- The police is allowed to do random checks of any gunowner's gun safe at his place of residence.

[Gravekeeper]

While true, it doesn't make it any less of a "I am getting in here" situation. He simply didn't break the door down yet.

There was no concentrated effort. He jiggled the doorknob, rang the door bell, wandered off in confusion, come back, did it again then wandered off in confusion. At that point he grabbed a gun and went outside to confront him. At the time of the confrontation, the victim was making no effort to break in he was just wandering aimlessly in the backyard with his dogs and a handful of mail.

Legally, he might not have as much ground to stand on, but I still say that fearing for his life and property, he didn't do anything I can condemn him for.cases, unwise.

I can condemn him for it. He was stupid and it ended up with someone losing their life. He was not under any active threat and the law doesn't generally consider your property a valid reason to kill.

It also means he was shivering and constantly moving toward the shooter. Again, dim light and adrenaline will make you see things that are not there, if given enough incentive and material.

Dim light conditions are the shooter's fault, he can't really use that as a defense when it was he who chose to confront the victim under those conditions. This is the entire problem. He did not react to a situation where he was under imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm ( Which is the legal benchmark used for self defense ). He went outside and created a situation where he falsely believed as such. Which is where it may fall apart for him because the crux is whether or not his actions are those of any reasonably prudent person in the same scenario.

Which they are not.

You can see basic shapes in almost pitch dark. He saw the silhouette, and DID let him know that he was there, simply by speaking. Nothing about the gun, but that's hindsight.

The Sheriff himself said that the victim speaks slowly due to his condition. Combine that with the victim likely being unable to see the shooter and his weapon and just moving towards his voice. Additionally, we don't know what the "verbal commands" the shooter gave to the victim were as he said only that he told him to stop moving. Did he actually tell him I have a gun and I will shoot? Or just stop moving, don't come any closer? If he couldn't see the victim well, the victim couldn't see him or the gun well either. Especially a Glock handgun, which is black.

Additionally, Georgia seems to be one of the few states where a warning shot is legally acceptable. But the shooter fired four rounds at the victim straight up.

]If I may, you seem to viewing this from the eyes of hindsight, where you know all the details. What did Mr. Hendrix know? A man woke him up by ringing a doorbell. A man is creeping around the house. Police have been called, will likely take a while to get here. Someone is trying to get in. My fiance might get in danger, the silverware/laptop already are. I have a handgun. I'll go out and stop him from taking everything, or at least dissuade them.

If you believe yourself and your family under serious threat, you do not open the door for that threat and wander out into the pitch black with a gun to confront that threat. That's B grade horror movie behaviour. Also, again, the guy tried the doorknob and range the doorbell twice. That was it. That was all he did. After that he was just wandering aimlessly outside. Which is the point the shooter choose to confront him with lethal force in complete darkness.

Which is the whole problem. Its hard to argue that you were in immediate danger to your life when you were the instigator of that situation and your belief of being in danger is due to circumstances ( darkness ) you were fully aware of. He placed himself in a bad situation that lead to the belief which caused him to pull the trigger. A situation in which there was not an active threat to his home in progress.

The last time this happened ( Which sadly wasn't that long ago ) it was an injured/intoxicated young black woman hammering on the guy's door. Whom he shot in the face through the screen on the threshold of his home and he's on the hook for second degree murder and manslaughter.

All this guy did was ring the doorbell, jiggle the doorknob than wander off with his dogs.

[siead_lietrathua]

i think what bugs me, again, is idiots shooting for a fatality on an unknown target. i mean FFS is it that hard to aim down? if you can see a person's outline, you can see their legs. blowing out someone's kneecap at least won't kill them.

(and yes, i know, arteries are in the leg and if you hit them they could bleed out without assistance. but it's still less likely to kill someone aiming for their legs instead of their heart or head)

[Salted Grump]

i think what bugs me, again, is idiots shooting for a fatality on an unknown target. i mean FFS is it that hard to aim down? if you can see a person's outline, you can see their legs. blowing out someone's kneecap at least won't kill them.

I hate to offer a counterpoint to this, but one of the first things I was taught in the Hunter Safety Course that's required before I got my PAL (after the ACTS procedure, which is your classic firearm safety stuff), was that if you are going to take a shot, aim for centre of mass, so as to not prolong the suffering of whatever you're going to put a hole in.

Now, obviously, this makes perfect sense when I'm sitting in a tree blind, waiting to ambush 200-odd pounds of venison, and if the shooter had the same type of training drilled into his head, he might have not even considered 'This is a human, I should aim for the dirt near his feet to warn him'. (Which, incidentally, would have put the dogs at risk.)

Now, that is entirely conjecture, and I have no idea what was going through the shooter's head, so take my two cents as you will.

[lordlundar]

i think what bugs me, again, is idiots shooting for a fatality on an unknown target. i mean FFS is it that hard to aim down? if you can see a person's outline, you can see their legs. blowing out someone's kneecap at least won't kill them.

(and yes, i know, arteries are in the leg and if you hit them they could bleed out without assistance. but it's still less likely to kill someone aiming for their legs instead of their heart or head)

I covered this in another thread but it bears repeating:

"They could have only fired once/shot to wound/given a warning shot/etc." Stop using movie/TV/game logic. The real world does not work that way. Guns are made to kill and are very effective at it. Extremity shots are tough to pull off and can be just as lethal, shots away from the target have been known to kill (even shots in the air have been lethal), and Officers needed to stop him outright. If you think that any of those alternatives is less risky, then I really want to live in your fantasy world.

[Andara Bledin]

What Lordlundar said: If you're going to shoot something, then aim for center mass.

If you're a marksman with backup, then fine, try to shoot to wound.

If you're someone in a self-defense scenario, you're going to shoot to kill. Not only that, but shooting to wound actually defeats a self-defense plea, as does not firing more than one round. The theory is that if you're in legitimate fear for your life, you're not going to fire a single round to the leg, you're going to fire several rounds to the torso because you're afraid of the person you're shooting and going to do your best to stop them as opposed to your second or third best. If you have the forethought to shoot to wound, then you aren't truly fearful for your life.

[Kelmon]

"They could have only fired once/shot to wound/given a warning shot/etc." Stop using movie/TV/game logic. The real world does not work that way. Guns are made to kill and are very effective at it. Extremity shots are tough to pull off and can be just as lethal, shots away from the target have been known to kill (even shots in the air have been lethal), and Officers needed to stop him outright. If you think that any of those alternatives is less risky, then I really want to live in your fantasy world.

Well, then pack your bags and come to the magical fantasy world of Germany, because that's how our police officers are taught to act. And they do so quite successfully. Feel free to look at some statistics.

"Always shoot to kill because the shot might otherwise go astray and hurt/kill someone" is ridiculous. Any shot can go astray, or pass through a target. The important thing here is to know what is behind the target. If you don't, and if your life is not directly threatened, you simply don't take a shot at all. And if you don't know what exactly is going on, you don't shoot to kill on the off-chance that some feeling of danger you might be having turns out to be right.

"Always shoot to kill because a wound might be lethal anyway".
Seriously? Even a miniscule chance of preserving someone's life instead of taking it would be worth taking, if at all possible.
What i find quite worrying is this "preventive strike"-mentality: I don' tknow if that other person has a firearm, but if i shoot first, he can't shoot me either way.

If you're someone in a self-defense scenario, you're going to shoot to kill. Not only that, but shooting to wound actually defeats a self-defense plea, as does not firing more than one round. The theory is that if you're in legitimate fear for your life, you're not going to fire a single round to the leg, you're going to fire several rounds to the torso because you're afraid of the person you're shooting and going to do your best to stop them as opposed to your second or third best. If you have the forethought to shoot to wound, then you aren't truly fearful for your life.

If you're in this very specific situation - sure. If i'm with my back to a wall and some crazy guy wielding a chainsaw runs toward me, shouting "Die! Die! Die!"...yes, i might shoot to kill.

But last i checked, the situation in question is an old, confused man standing in someone's yard.

[Andara Bledin]

If you're in this very specific situation - sure. If i'm with my back to a wall and some crazy guy wielding a chainsaw runs toward me, shouting "Die! Die! Die!"...yes, i might shoot to kill.

But last i checked, the situation in question is an old, confused man standing in someone's yard.

This is the US. Our law is not as good as it should be.

Neither is our police training, frighteningly enough. The typical civilian who carries trains more than the typical police officer.

[Gravekeeper]

He couldn't see him well enough to identify his target to begin with and took 4 shots to hit him once. Aiming to wound wouldn't have worked out much better me thinks. We'd likely have a dead man and a dead dog had he aimed for the legs.

As is he's lucky its mostly woods and open space lining the property.

[wolfie]

If you're someone in a self-defense scenario, you're going to shoot to kill.

Hell no! (from a legal viewpoint). In a self-defense scenario, you're going to shoot to STOP THE THREAT. Of course, once someone is dead, they're no longer the threat, but for someone defending themselves it's irrelevant whether the threat surrenders, runs away, dies, or gets beamed up by the Enterprise - in all these cases, they no longer pose a threat.

[s_stabeler]

Hell no! (from a legal viewpoint). In a self-defense scenario, you're going to shoot to STOP THE THREAT. Of course, once someone is dead, they're no longer the threat, but for someone defending themselves it's irrelevant whether the threat surrenders, runs away, dies, or gets beamed up by the Enterprise - in all these cases, they no longer pose a threat.

You are both right- when you are aiming the gun, you aim at center mass, not at any extremity ( and not a headshot either) but as soon as the threat is over, you stop shooting. (with obvious allowances for if you have already pulled the trigger when the target surrenders)