[ambrosejohnson]

If somebody forced the door open of my home uninvited, I would too be scared. A Virginia man (ex-NASA employee and ex-policeman) was convicted of murder one for what looks like the shooting of a home invader (a next-door neighbor in military service) to me. The convicted ex-policeman in this case was involved in two prior shootings of suspects as a LEO on duty which he was cleared of any wrongdoing in both of those incidents. Being that this man had LEO experience and deadly force experience, it would seem that he should have been well-trained in the use of deadly force when his front door popped open.

 

[MontanaMac]

Absolutely unjustified shooting.

The ex-cop is an asshole and deserves prison time.

The video shows that the neighbor waited for the ex-cop to open his door after knocking or ringing the doorbell, that's not an aggressive act that would imply a threat to life. Further, the neighbor was not armed. There was no apparent threat to the ex-cop's life, so there was no reason to kill the man.

And then to threaten the wife who is trying to render aid to her husband, that just shows that the ex-cop was angry and not reacting to a threat to his life. All cops are trained to provide first aid to any shooting victim, even a person that was shot by the cop, that's a requirement. The fact that this fat ass looser tried to prevent the wife from rendering aid to her husband is just over the top.

 

[ambrosejohnson]

Absolutely unjustified shooting.

The ex-cop is an asshole and deserves prison time.

The video shows that the neighbor waited for the ex-cop to open his door after knocking or ringing the doorbell, that's not an aggressive act that would imply a threat to life. Further, the neighbor was not armed. There was no apparent threat to the ex-cop's life, so there was no reason to kill the man.

And then to threaten the wife who is trying to render aid to her husband, that just shows that the ex-cop was angry and not reacting to a threat to his life. All cops are trained to provide first aid to any shooting victim, even a person that was shot by the cop, that's a requirement. The fact that this fat ass looser tried to prevent the wife from rendering aid to her husband is just over the top.

Might manslaughter been a more fair charge? He might have just been criminally negligent? Heat of passion shooting might justify a charge of murder two. His defense team did not apparently try the insanity or diminished capacity angle. Then again, he was an ex-cop maybe because he was incompetent as a LE officer.

 

[Mindy up North]

Putting aside the racial based testimony and motive based on the prior encounters between the two, the charges are appropriate based solely on the shooting. The shooter is a man who was a former LEO. As such he likely had judgmental and use of force/escalation training. He claims self defense because the victim was a threat. For the sake of argument, let's assume he was a threat (despite the video showing otherwise). Even if he was a threat, that threat ended the moment the victim retreated. The shooter pursued the victim and shot him again while retreating. Then, as the man was laying on the ground incapitated, the shooter took aim from up on the stairs and shot him one last time. The victim was not a threat and not shot in self defense, he was assassinated. The charges for murder were absolutely appropriate.

I don't know about other states, but in Alaska, the only time you can shoot a fleeing person is if they commited an egregious crime where the shooter reasonably believed not stopping the criminal would have resulted in the serious bodily injury or death of others. A good example of this would be an active shooter who murders people and is trying to escape while still shooting at others.

 

[BigEd63]

Shooter apparently snapped after a long running feud that I strongly suspect that he started.
I don't normally kick in and profile people but.....
Anyways yes his own actions convicted him.

 

[Elfie]

I was looking to see if this man had charges brought up against him for threatening his neighbors wife. Does anyone know? Detailed information on the case seems to be limited to brief media coverage of the verdict.

 

[Dragunov]

If somebody forced the door open of my home uninvited, I would too be scared. A Virginia man (ex-NASA employee and ex-policeman) was convicted of murder one for what looks like the shooting of a home invader (a next-door neighbor in military service) to me. The convicted ex-policeman in this case was involved in two prior shootings of suspects as a LEO on duty which he was cleared of any wrongdoing in both of those incidents. Being that this man had LEO experience and deadly force experience, it would seem that he should have been well-trained in the use of deadly force when his front door popped open.

Ex-cop is a real penis head. He definitely, deserves to spend the rest of his life, pinned up with "Bubba".

 

[Dragunov]

Might manslaughter been a more fair charge? He might have just been criminally negligent? Heat of passion shooting might justify a charge of murder two. His defense team did not apparently try the insanity or diminished capacity angle. Then again, he was an ex-cop maybe because he was incompetent as a LE officer.

No. Judging by the video, this was outright murder.

 

[Cyrano]

I think this case is still taught in the "righteous shoot" portion of police academy training. I tell it as I got it from a deputy sheriff.

About 20 years ago, three freelance socialists were buzzed into a jewelry story that dealt mostly in diamond jewelry in the Greater NYC area. They pulled pistols and threatened the customers, clerks, and the owner of the shop. The owner had a pistol and a pistol permit, probably a premises permit given the location. In any case, he got his pistol and commenced firing at the perps, dropping one of them as the perps returned fire. They decided things were too hot for them, and bolted out the front door and ran down the sidewalk. The shop owner followed them onto the sidewalk and dropped both of the fleeing perps.

The people in the area were appalled when the jeweler was arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. By street standards, the shop owner was just defending himself, his customers, and his property.

But if you break the incident down, the verdict that sent the shop owner up the river is the correct one. There are two parts to it, a point missed by the common folk.

When the perps pulled guns and threatened people in the shop, the jeweler was justified in defending himself, the people in the shop, and his property. His shooting of the goblin who was shooting at him is a righteous shoot. There was an imminent threat and he had every reason to be in fear of his life.

But when the other two perps fled, the imminent threat ended and so did the fear of life. The moment he followed the perps out of the shop, HE became the aggressor. He shot and killed the two perps who had tried to rob his shop when they were not threatening him or anyone else. That makes him the guilty party, and that is why he was convicted of two counts of murder.

There was no threat here, and that ex-cop certainly knew better. He just thought he would get away with it because he expected a certain amount of professional courtesy from the serving officers. He did not get, and did not deserve, that professional courtesy. At that point, he was merely a civilian, got the same treatment any other private citizen would get.

 

[PaleHawkDown]

I think this case is still taught in the "righteous shoot" portion of police academy training. I tell it as I got it from a deputy sheriff.

About 20 years ago, three freelance socialists were buzzed into a jewelry story that dealt mostly in diamond jewelry in the Greater NYC area. They pulled pistols and threatened the customers, clerks, and the owner of the shop. The owner had a pistol and a pistol permit, probably a premises permit given the location. In any case, he got his pistol and commenced firing at the perps, dropping one of them as the perps returned fire. They decided things were too hot for them, and bolted out the front door and ran down the sidewalk. The shop owner followed them onto the sidewalk and dropped both of the fleeing perps.

The people in the area were appalled when the jeweler was arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. By street standards, the shop owner was just defending himself, his customers, and his property.

But if you break the incident down, the verdict that sent the shop owner up the river is the correct one. There are two parts to it, a point missed by the common folk.

When the perps pulled guns and threatened people in the shop, the jeweler was justified in defending himself, the people in the shop, and his property. His shooting of the goblin who was shooting at him is a righteous shoot. There was an imminent threat and he had every reason to be in fear of his life.

But when the other two perps fled, the imminent threat ended and so did the fear of life. The moment he followed the perps out of the shop, HE became the aggressor. He shot and killed the two perps who had tried to rob his shop when they were not threatening him or anyone else. That makes him the guilty party, and that is why he was convicted of two counts of murder.

There was no threat here, and that ex-cop certainly knew better. He just thought he would get away with it because he expected a certain amount of professional courtesy from the serving officers. He did not get, and did not deserve, that professional courtesy. At that point, he was merely a civilian, got the same treatment any other private citizen would get.

I have always wondered why that was the case.

Police are (or, at least were, depending on the race of those involved) allowed to shoot fleeing, armed and dangerous, suspects. It was considered a matter of public safety.

Police are supposed to have no more power than any other citizen; they are supposed to adhere to the same laws.

A person, however, is not allowed to shoot a fleeing, armed and dangerous criminal, why?

Not only would it be justified under the same matter of public safety, but the thugs KNOW where the individual lives or works. That means that not only is the public safety at risk, but there is nothing to stop those people from ambushing the armed citizen at a more vulnerable time, either.

In my time covering police stories, I covered numerous "justified shoots" and covered many "homicides" that were almost the exact same scenarios, with the only exception being whether the shooter had a badge or not.

 

[Elfie]

Ex-cop is a real penis head. He definitely, deserves to spend the rest of his life, pinned up with "Bubba".

Maybe his new roommates will Drag him around and name him Bubbette.

 

[BigEd63]

I've been involved in two situations that I care to mention that had to do with shoot or no shoot.
One happened approximately 35years ago. It turned out to be just trespassers hunting on the family land not any of the neo-nazi types that had threatened and even staked out the family of a friend of mine.
The other was roughly a year ago now and involved a individual that was for all outward appearances a tweaker or lacquer head or a combo of both.
In both cases I'm glad that it didn't end up in any sort of actual shooting.

 

[Cyrano]

I have always wondered why that was the case.

Police are (or, at least were, depending on the race of those involved) allowed to shoot fleeing, armed and dangerous, suspects. It was considered a matter of public safety.

Police are supposed to have no more power than any other citizen; they are supposed to adhere to the same laws.

A person, however, is not allowed to shoot a fleeing, armed and dangerous criminal, why?

Not only would it be justified under the same matter of public safety, but the thugs KNOW where the individual lives or works. That means that not only is the public safety at risk, but there is nothing to stop those people from ambushing the armed citizen at a more vulnerable time, either.

In my time covering police stories, I covered numerous "justified shoots" and covered many "homicides" that were almost the exact same scenarios, with the only exception being whether the shooter had a badge or not.

The only answer I can give you is to read Massad Ayoob's books on defensive pistolcraft. As a former police captain in New Hampshire and the current head of the Second Amendment Foundation, he has taken on the mantle of "the gunners' guru" from the hook where the late Jeff Cooper left it. He explains all the ins and outs of when you should and should not shoot, and what you may expect if you ever have to use a firearm against a goblin. They ought to be required reading for everyone who wants to carry concealed.

 

[PaleHawkDown]

The only answer I can give you is to read Massad Ayoob's books on defensive pistolcraft. As a former police captain in New Hampshire and the current head of the Second Amendment Foundation, he has taken on the mantle of "the gunners' guru" from the hook where the late Jeff Cooper left it. He explains all the ins and outs of when you should and should not shoot, and what you may expect if you ever have to use a firearm against a goblin. They ought to be required reading for everyone who wants to carry concealed.

Yeah, he explains the law, but that does not explain the double standard. Or any of the double standards that police are allowed, that would be criminal for the rest of us.